Top 10 Favorite Bands

[Mort Divine]

Okay, one divergence that simply takes their acoustic sections and focuses solely on them.

 

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

Just because a metal band records an odd non-metal song or album doesn't make them non-metal right there. And I don't believe I ever said that. Damnation is an acoustic soft rock album by a metal band. I don't really think that's that strange, nor does it really impact how I see them.

Alice In Chains utilize rather straightforward song structures, and even when they elongate them, they fail to utilize driving rhythmic sections, heavy syncopated or muted riffs or really anything that is commonly found in various styles of metal.

Devildriver is a good example of a non-metal band with a metal album. They are now considered a metal band, though, since their metal influences and new direction are at the forefront of what they are artistically accomplishing.

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.

Electronic dance music clearly is not metal since it does not focus on guitars. No one confuses the two anyway so that point is irrelevant. High-pitched and emphatic clean vocals are a usual feature of the genre of "heavy metal." Of course they're not a usual feature of METAL (which includes its multifarious subgenres). A lot of the times, the subgenres of metal are very far apart, but curiously remain metal by definition. That makes being precise about this very difficult, I agree.

Lyrics NEVER define what genre a band is. Vocals NEVER define what genre a band is. EVER. You cannot make the point that they do, because you'd be wrong. I don't know how else to say it.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Side note:

I think we really need to come together as a forum at some point and come up with a standard, widely-accepted definition of metal that we can sticky somewhere and use as a reference point during debates like this. It's such a pain in the ass having to come up with that definition on the fly.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Alice In Chains utilize rather straightforward song structures, and even when they elongate them, they fail to utilize driving rhythmic sections, heavy syncopated or muted riffs or really anything that is commonly found in various styles of metal.

Thank you. Finally, something to work with.

I don't have an immediate response for you on this - I'll have to think about it for a bit (and probably re-listen to some AiC). I'll get back to you.

Still, take a look at my argument about the occasional indistinguishability between rock and metal, and give me a counter to that if you can.

 

[waif]

Side note:

I think we really need to come together as a forum at some point and come up with a standard, widely-accepted definition of metal that we can sticky somewhere and use as a reference point during debates like this. It's such a pain in the ass having to come up with that definition on the fly.

I very much think we need this. Hammer out a definition of metal, and of the various subgenres, so that we don't have to endlessly argue shit.

 

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

I'd also like to point out that there isn't ONE THING that defines metal. Because metal is RIDICULOUSLY varied, I don't believe there is some umbrella thing all metal bands do that couldn't be found in other forms of music (i.e. "they all have guitars derpa derp!"). This is why metal is much easier to work with if you consider the criterion for being metal to be "you have to fit into one or more previously defined and concrete genres/styles of metal".

No one will ever come to a consensus, which is sad because these are facts we're talking about. Since metal is so varied and people approach it in so many different (subjective/ignorant) ways, it is impossible for everyone to agree on something definite and concrete (not to mention non-vague, as outlined above) that ALL metal bands have.

V-G, can you point out the particular argument you want me to counter? I tried to find it but there were a few points which referenced this gray area you speak of. It's an interesting point but I think, as I said before, it is a case-by-case thing which depends on how many characteristics of certain styles of metal the questionable band utilizes compared to typical stylistic elements of "rock" music.

 

[Dazed and Brutal]

Absolutely not. They were a metal band. How many rock bands then sounded like Black Sabbath? How many rock bands wrote heavy, driving, eclectic songs with various tempo changes and sections which were undeniably "one song" when put together? Just because some of their stuff sounds rockier now because of our modern perspective doesn't make them any less "metal."

Wishbone Ash, King Crimson, Sir Lord Baltimore, URIAH HEAP, etc. etc.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

I'd also like to point out that there isn't ONE THING that defines metal. Because metal is RIDICULOUSLY varied, I don't believe there is some umbrella thing all metal bands do that couldn't be found in other forms of music (i.e. "they all have guitars derpa derp!"). This is why metal is much easier to work with if you consider the criterion for being metal to be "you have to fit into one or more previously defined and concrete genres/styles of metal".

No one will ever come to a consensus, which is sad because these are facts we're talking about. Since metal is so varied and people approach it in so many different (subjective/ignorant) ways, it is impossible for everyone to agree on something definite and concrete (not to mention non-vague, as outlined above) that ALL metal bands have.

I wouldn't be so pessimistic. I don't think we would even be able to use the term "metal", or be able to distinguish metal from non-metal, if there weren't some sort of real definition. But it's definitely a complicated definition.

I know we've had at least one "definition of metal" thread before, but would you mind if I made another, so that I could keep the OP updated with a complete, official definition as it were hashed out throughout the course of the thread? I think it's about time we worked on that.

 

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

To D&B: All rock, definitely, though I can hear out cases for some of King Crimson and Uriah Heep's material at least. None of them sounded as dark, heavy and apocalyptic as Black Sabbath. Though I can agree that originally the line between "metal" and "heavy rock" was pretty blurry, it's definitely outgrown that.

I wouldn't be so pessimistic. I don't think we would even be able to use the term "metal", or be able to distinguish metal from non-metal, if there weren't some sort of real definition. But it's definitely a complicated definition.

I know we've had at least one "definition of metal" thread before, but would you mind if I made another, so that I could keep the OP updated with a complete, official definition as it were hashed out throughout the course of the thread? I think it's about time we worked on that.

Well, there is a definition and it is basically how I presented it above. Bands have to fit into the defined subgenres of metal to be metal, it's that easy.

I wouldn't be averse to a thread asking what every person's own particular definition of "what is metal?" so we could get a little more perspective.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

V-G, can you point out the particular argument you want me to counter? I tried to find it but there were a few points which referenced this gray area you speak of. It's an interesting point but I think, as I said before, it is a case-by-case thing which depends on how many characteristics of certain styles of metal the questionable band utilizes compared to typical stylistic elements of "rock" music.

Here it is:

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".

And here's the analogy I made to support my claim that undecidable borderline cases can exist in classifications.

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.

 

[Dazed and Brutal]

Sir Lord Baltimore is in no way just rock son!

Another good example, Deep Purple clearly counters what you said. Sorry, but there's no way to say Black Sabbath isn't fundemently rock when metal didn't even exist at the time, and they didn't even consider themselves by the term either.

edit: Blue Oyster Cult

 

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

To V-G:

It's an interesting point but I think, as I said before, it is a case-by-case thing which depends on how many characteristics of certain styles of metal the questionable band utilizes compared to typical stylistic elements of "rock" music.

Then again I consider noise to be music if it is harnessed by artists with the express interest of crafting the noise in their own artistic vision. But you don't really like extreme metal very much and thus have less of a frame of reference than I do, so we're both a little handicapped here

D&B: Metal came into existence with Sabbath and of course they didn't consider themselves metal because they frankly couldn't have; the term didn't even really exist I don't believe. It is not important what a band considers themselves because they have their own subjective view of their style; if Glen Benton started calling Deicide power metal would you listen to him too? Nah, because you can verify objectively that Deicide is death metal. It really is pretty simple. I know what you mean about Deep Purple, and they are definitely a borderline case, and I can even commit to calling them metal at times, but I think Sabbath were the first band to write "albums" of metal which were always contextual of metal even when they utilized non-metal instrumentation. It's hard to say what I mean from what I'm thinking, I hope you understand.

 

[Mort Divine]

Deep Purple were never metal.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Well, there is a definition and it is basically how I presented it above. Bands have to fit into the defined subgenres of metal to be metal, it's that easy.

That's an incomplete definition. You have to actually know what the subgenres are to be able to classify bands into them. And it also assumes that there will never be any new subgenres of metal, which is highly questionable.

 

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

I dunno, Highway Star is pretty much heavy metal.

That's an incomplete definition. You have to actually know what the subgenres are to be able to classify bands into them. And it also assumes that there will never be any new subgenres of metal, which is highly questionable.

I do know what the subgenres are. I even define them in the little thing I linked you to! What I mean is bands can't just be metal. They have to be a specific style of metal. Metal is not like folk or pop music in which bands can just be straight folk or straight-up pop music. The terminology is different and thus it follows that bands are placed into subgenres by the qualifications they express for each subgenre (and this is why bands can fit into more than one, if they display an abundance of influences/dispositions towards more than one style).

And yes I am assuming that there will never be any more new subgenres of metal, and I think we can cross that bridge if/when we come to it (I think we'd know "when" it came by instict; "what the fuck this band has a lot of the basic, typical characteristics of "metal music" but doesn't sound like any of the already established genres, headasplode!!!"). I think the only development that will be made in metal will be of these different basic types:

1. Crossbreeding of already extant styles
2. Bands haphazardly combining wacky non-metal influences into a generic "heavy guitars and drums" base to make "avant-garde metal"
3. Bands will subtly combine variegated influences from disparate genres of metal to create something which is artistically "their own", furthering the genre in the most pure and non-overblown way (sadly these bands will be overlooked in favor of CRAAAAZY bands doing CRAAAAZY things like putting panpipes in melo-death and calling it folk metal).

 

[waif]

Music is anything that has melody and rhythm. I would define metal as a dark brand of music that universally incorporates guitar and drums (if it doesn't have this, it's just not metal), and usually bass and vocals. While most metal has roots in rock music, these aren't always recognizable (see if you can find the Beatles' influence in Gorgoroth).

That's as far as I've gotten with a universal definition...this includes all of metal, but doesn't exclude stuff like hardcore punk, emo, etc...I'll work on it.

 

[Vimana]

I don't think you can come up with a definition that everyone will agree on. The definition has changed over the years (bands like Zeppelin and Deep Purple were considered Metal in their time, according to people I have known who were alive then), and Metal has been split into so many subgenres with so many characteristics that people end up looking at what Metal is in many different ways.

 

[Jimm O)))]

1. Opeth
2. The Axis of Perdition
3. Blut Aus Nord
4. Nokturnal Mortum
5. Novum Organum
6. Meshuggah
7. Spiral Architect
8. Death
9. Emperor
10. Zero Hour

I just stuck with my favorite metal bands.

 

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

Music is anything that has melody and rhythm. I would define metal as a dark brand of music that universally incorporates guitar and drums (if it doesn't have this, it's just not metal), and usually bass and vocals. While most metal has roots in rock music, these aren't always recognizable (see if you can find the Beatles' influence in Gorgoroth).

That's as far as I've gotten with a universal definition...this includes all of metal, but doesn't exclude stuff like hardcore punk, emo, etc...I'll work on it.

A few very basic and very important criticisms:

"Dark" is pretty subjective. Power metal usually is very "light" but is still metal. There are metal bands who don't use guitars and only use bass (I'm not sure who off the top of my head, but I do know it wouldn't make them non-metal right there. In fact, they'd be even heavier!). Metal is always either consciously or unconsciously influenced by rock, but the specific bands (i.e. your point that Gorgoroth probably wasn't influenced consciously by the Beatles, which is a good point and I'm glad you brought it up) which were influential are irrelevant and represent a subjective artistic vision of the songwriters in the band.

You should definitely exclude hardcore punk (a kind of punk, obviously) and emo/screamo (also a kind of punk) from your definition of metal. Grindcore can be metal or punk, it depends on some factors including songwriting, rhythmic base and riff writing. Same with metalcore (more metallic version of hardcore).

 

[waif]

What metal bands don't use guitars (or computerized guitars) and drums (by which I include any form of percussion)?

I agree about dark, though...I'm trying to find a way to make shit more specific.