Written by totaliteraliter on 01.02.2008 at 17:58

The problem with this isn't that it's "heresy" or "untrue" : , but that this view of metal is musicologically hopeless and academically laughable. For serious discussion we need to be able to look at technical elements, and also at development and evolution. Start throwing in things like grunge or post-punk or funk "metal" and you are totally ignoring the more reasonable and logical evolutionary descriptions of metal; instead you are picking and choosing from across the music world subgenres that bear a superficial resemblance to the things that are actually fundamental to metal (fundamentals which would never be discovered with such a view). It's like if we were on a punk forum and we were calling thrash metal and black metal "alternative punk."

no, but you could get away with calling crossover from the 80s "alternative punk".

Academically speaking, if you try reading a musicology dissertation about rock music, you'd find that their views tend to be closer to mine than yours. The so called fundamentals you mention are symbolic within the hermetic metalhead society and work as rites of passage more than anything else. Their study would be interesting more on a semiotic level than a musicological one.

Written by Guest on 01.02.2008 at 19:06
One can draw a straight line from Black Sabbath through stoner acts to grunge.

And through many other musical movements, the question is whether that is the main branch of influence all along (which in the case of most "alternative metal" being thrown about here it is not).

Written by Guest on 01.02.2008 at 19:06
It's really absurdly humorous (yet makes sense given the overall mindset which prevails amongst genre adherents) that one should call upon "the fundamentals of metal". The Bible sayeth...!

I am about one strawman away from giving up on you, please focus on what is said and not what the stereotype in your head is saying...

Written by totaliteraliter on 01.02.2008 at 17:58
no, but you could get away with calling crossover from the 80s "alternative punk".

That's not what you're doing. You're not throwing in obvious and established fusion genres, you're picking out movements totally unrelated in all but the most superficial elements. If you accept grunge as metal I don't see how you can't accept black metal or thrash metal as punk.

Written by totaliteraliter on 01.02.2008 at 17:58
Academically speaking, if you try reading a musicology dissertation about rock music, you'd find that their views tend to be closer to mine than yours. The so called fundamentals you mention are symbolic within the hermetic metalhead society and work as rites of passage more than anything else.

Um... you're saying that a genre's technical elements, development and evolution are "symbolic" and "work as rites of passage" rather than serve as a basis for reasoned analysis?

they can serve as a basis for reasoned analysis of group sociology of the metalhead sub culture based on how knowledge of archetypal metal 'fundamentals' helps people fit in better into this group. Dont forget that bands who openly profess a will to belong to a genre should be analysed in the same fashion, not as an evolution of a superficial style.

@totaliteraliter, given your obvious background in metal academia, you can surely give us enlightening examples of said "technical elements, development and evolution", that are contrary to what jupitreas is saying. And I am focusing on what you are saying, unfortunately what you are saying is mostly playing into the stereotype of the elitist true metal cult member.

As for "main branch of influence", I refer to my above statement of alternative metal being named thus because of it deviating from mainstream metal, or "main branch of influence" if you want to call it that. As I said before, if you start from Sabbath, Zeppelin, Purple and Heep, and start drawing a "main branch of influence", where does it terminate? At death metal? Grindcore? Thrash metal? Power metal? Doom metal? Prog metal? Black Metal? If you ask me, that's more than one branch.

another thing worth mentioning - certain bands, such a killing joke, were clearly a product of their times, and this is the main reason why they are labelled as post-punk, instead of as a subgenre of metal. fair enough, considering killing joke emerged from the british post-punk scene; however, this doesn't change the fact that the INITIAL categorisation could have been erroneous. only in hindsight can you see more clearly that these bands in fact have a lot to do with metal.

Written by jupitreas on 01.02.2008 at 20:16
they can serve as a basis for reasoned analysis of group sociology of the metalhead sub culture based on how knowledge of archetypal metal 'fundamentals' helps people fit in better into this group. Dont forget that bands who openly profess a will to belong to a genre should be analysed in the same fashion, not as an evolution of a superficial style.

This point seems fragmentary... maybe you could expand as to what this has to do with the discussion and clearly explain the distinction you seem to be trying to make.

Written by Guest on 01.02.2008 at 20:21
@totaliteraliter, given your obvious background in metal academia, you can surely give us enlightening examples of said "technical elements, development and evolution", that are contrary to what jupitreas is saying.

Basic stuff... Second wave black metal evolved out of first wave black metal, NWOBHM evolved out of the 1970s metal movement, etc. These sorts of connections are what make certain subgenres accepted parts of the metal "family tree". When we start trying to toss in things like grunge or nu metal or whatever other controversy "alternative metal" offers us we find that such strong evolutionary ties (to metal) are absent or at least much weaker. Along with this goes technical elements like vocal and instrumental techniques and of course associated imagery and thematic items. When we call, say, Nirvana a metal band these are some of the "fundamentals" that are not being considered.

Written by Guest on 01.02.2008 at 20:21
And I am focusing on what you are saying, unfortunately what you are saying is mostly playing into the stereotype of the elitist true metal cult member.

At least you admit your bias...

Written by Guest on 01.02.2008 at 20:21
As for "main branch of influence", I refer to my above statement of alternative metal being named thus because of it deviating from mainstream metal...

What is your source for that, I wonder?

Written by jupitreas on 01.02.2008 at 20:31
another thing worth mentioning - certain bands, such a killing joke, were clearly a product of their times, and this is the main reason why they are labelled as post-punk, instead of as a subgenre of metal. fair enough, considering killing joke emerged from the british post-punk scene; however, this doesn't change the fact that the INITIAL categorisation could have been erroneous. only in hindsight can you see more clearly that these bands in fact have a lot to do with metal.

Scene involvement, I think, is a key element in categorization. Not so much what the band is "labeled as", but what they behave as is and should be a major determining factor especially in borderline cases.

Written by Guest on 01.02.2008 at 19:06

@Skald, while I'm not quite sure what you mean with "butching of the rhythm parts" and giving them "strange" progressions and stressing them, isn't that quite the point in rhythm music all the way down to jazz, to stress particular points in rhythm. And as for staccato, is Stravinsky's Le Sacre de Printemps metal now? The fact remains that if we use as the template the first bands that were classified "heavy metal" (Zep, Purple, Sabbath, Heep), we'd have to cast off a vast majority of today's metal... at least if we follow such narrow minded standards. And besides, for Frigg's sake, stop worshipping this pseudo-Platonic idealistic metal concept. Metal is just a word used to describe a subset of rhythm music.

Punk and alternative rock don't stress the rhythm nearly as much as heavy metal. That was my point. That these elements go back to jazz... Well, metal did take rich influences from prior forms of music, didn't it?
And again. Staccato is what differs metal from the mainstream forms of rock, including alternative metal. Hard rock and heavy metal share the element of staccato, giving basis for some hard rock to be considered border-line with heavy metal - so I have no idea where you take your "fact" from.

Lastly, I am far from worshipping the concept of metal. I will listen to other genres of music same as I do to metal. However, I have that strange thing called interest in music. From this stem these bizarre urges to try and learn some theory behind music I listen to. Yes, I realise nowadays such behaviour connected with will to share one's opinions falls under being hard-headed, narrow minded, or having the Manowar syndrome.

@Skald, the whole concept of "breakdown" is from hc punk, how's that not stressing the rhythm? And perhaps you haven't heard Zeppelin, Purple, Sabbath, Heep? Since it's starting to feel to me as though you have not. And as for learning musical theory, more people should. However, that's besides the point. A point you still seem to be missing. Listen to Led Zeppelin and then come reiterate your basic metal elements, then we'll have something to discuss.

@totaliteraliter, I haven't seen you state any sources either. I would like to see some on these "strong evolutionary ties to metal". Nu metal - a very loosely defined genre at that, but let's take Korn for example - is definitely strongly rooted in metal. It has the strong rhythmic emphasis Skald speaks of, it has distorted guitars, screeched vocals, anger, energy, attitude, and clearly audible elements from so called classical metal acts. Then let's take Converge, again, strong rhythmic emphasis, distorted guitars, screeched vocals, anger, energy, attitude, clearly audible elements etc. What sets them off as "alternative" is how they deliberately try to step outside the box and explore new dimensions, take new influences and throw them into the mix.

Ur-Nammu, any source dealing with alternative metal supports what totaliteraliter is saying. I linked you to one. Have you tried looking anything up yourself?

It's also funny how you spend more time assuming what I know and what I don't know than giving support for your own claims. Led Zeppelin - "Immigrant Song". It has that chunky rhythm typical for all genres of metal. And only several Led songs are considered to be borderline with Heavy Metal, the band still having strong roots in classic rock. Nice try though.

Written by Guest on 01.02.2008 at 21:22
@totaliteraliter, I haven't seen you state any sources either. I would like to see some on these "strong evolutionary ties to metal".

Are you asking for a source on how second wave black metal evolved out of first wave black metal?

Written by Guest on 01.02.2008 at 21:22
Nu metal - a very loosely defined genre at that, but let's take Korn for example - is definitely strongly rooted in metal. It has the strong rhythmic emphasis Skald speaks of, it has distorted guitars, screeched vocals, anger, energy, attitude, and clearly audible elements from so called classical metal acts. Then let's take Converge, again, strong rhythmic emphasis, distorted guitars, screeched vocals, anger, energy, attitude, clearly audible elements etc. What sets them off as "alternative" is how they deliberately try to step outside the box and explore new dimensions, take new influences and throw them into the mix.

This is what I would describe as a preliminary analysis; you are describing superficial characteristics that appear to place nu metal as a metal development. While we can very easily do the same with (continuing one example) 1st/2nd wave black metal, we can also very easily connect which bands got which elements from which predecessors in the preceding movement. But with nu metal this becomes much more difficult - just where do all these seemingly metal elements come from? What metal subgenre or scene is nu metal a clear evolution of? What bands are the main inspirations? When we ask these questions we start finding not an overwhelmingly metal background, like in the case of second wave black metal, instead we find that the analysis takes us to places like alternative rock, hard rock, funk, rapcore, grunge, the Lollapalooza scene... metal is either one branch of influence among many, or it isn't there at all. And if all we need to consider something metal is one branch of influence among many other more dominant ones, then we're back to calling black metal a subgenre of punk.

Written by totaliteraliter on 01.02.2008 at 20:53

Written by jupitreas on 01.02.2008 at 20:16
they can serve as a basis for reasoned analysis of group sociology of the metalhead sub culture based on how knowledge of archetypal metal 'fundamentals' helps people fit in better into this group. Dont forget that bands who openly profess a will to belong to a genre should be analysed in the same fashion, not as an evolution of a superficial style.

This point seems fragmentary... maybe you could expand as to what this has to do with the discussion and clearly explain the distinction you seem to be trying to make.

Frankly this is one of those things I am usually trying to avoid getting into huge discussions about because in my experience, such discussions degenerate into personal attacks and claims made on the basis of one's individual understanding of the term metal. I will, nevertheless, try.

Part of being a metalhead is being a fan of bands that the majority of the subculture consider to be archetypically metal. Obviously, this implies familiarity with symbolic musical elements that constitute the archetypal metal sound (ie. typically - high pitch vocals, double bass drumming, tremolo riffing, triplets etc.). Being versed in these elements assures one the respect of members of the metalhead community and is part of the reaon why metalheads love to consider metal as an autonomous genre and to hate anything that veers too far away from this formula. This; however, still all has to do with a purely sociological understanding of metal as a genre, as opposed to a musical one. Evolution in this respect has to be understood as an attempt to creatively reuse certain genre archetypes and it seems to me that this is the evolution of metal that you seem to want to approach in an academic way. Nevertheless, you have to realize that what you are doing in this case is not so much an analysis of how a genre developed musically as an investigation in how a unifying language of a society has evolved over time.

If you want to approach metal from a musical point of view, with its main aims being an aggressive, bombastic sound based usually on an ensemble of rock instruments, so called alternative metal bands begin to fit the bill perfectly. The key is approaching music without a sociological element and if we look at it in this way, alternative metal bands definitely become a form of metal. Indeed, in many cases what seperated alt metal bands from 'true' metal bands is simply this idea of not giving a shit about belonging to a scene or sub culture. Not only that, this is how metal evolves - by incorporating elements of other styles, as well as unique and original approaches. Without being constrained to a sociological interpretation of metal, nu metal riffs arent a seperate way of playing heavy music using drums and guitars - they become another way of playing metal.

Metal Storm is not a magazine for metalheads, it is a magazine for metal fans. This is why we embrace alternative metal bands here, unlike MA or many other websites out there.

One final observation. Obviously, not all bands that make heavy music using the rock band ensemble are metal. Nobody in the right state of mind would call the White Stripes metal for example. This is where the idea of musical evolution fits in. One can definitely see a clear sense of evolving (even if only partially) from metal in the music of bands like Faith No More, Rage Against The Machine, Nirvana or Korn. Calling them simply metal bands, while not wrong, typically is met with much resistance from the metal community. Hence the term alternative metal. They are obviously a form of metal (even if not entirely metal); however, they dont fit in the sociologically defined archetype of metal.

This is all I have to say on the issue, I dont think I can express it any more clearly without writing a dissertation.

Written by totaliteraliter on 01.02.2008 at 20:53

Scene involvement, I think, is a key element in categorization. Not so much what the band is "labeled as", but what they behave as is and should be a major determining factor especially in borderline cases.

No. Due to the points I made before.

Written by jupitreas on 01.02.2008 at 22:10
If you want to approach metal from a musical point of view, with its main aims being an aggressive, bombastic sound based usually on an ensemble of rock instruments, so called alternative metal bands begin to fit the bill perfectly.

This isn't approaching it from a musical point of view at all - it's approaching it using vague and superficial musical and thematic elements. I still fail to see how a similar viewpoint of punk music wouldn't include black metal or thrash metal within its boundaries.

Written by jupitreas on 01.02.2008 at 22:10
Indeed, in many cases what seperated alt metal bands from 'true' metal bands is simply this idea of not giving a shit about belonging to a scene or sub culture.

I'd say rather they gave a greater shit about belonging to a certain different subculture...

Written by jupitreas on 01.02.2008 at 22:10
Not only that, this is how metal evolves - by incorporating elements of other styles, as well as unique and original approaches.

This is the key mistake you're making - how do you differentiate between incorporating other styles into metal and incorporating metal into other styles? Because it seems to me that you don't draw such a line at any point.

Written by totaliteraliter on 01.02.2008 at 22:25

This isn't approaching it from a musical point of view at all - it's approaching it using vague and superficial musical and thematic elements. I still fail to see how a similar viewpoint of punk music wouldn't include black metal or thrash metal within its boundaries.

This is a where a detailed analysis of what musical elements overwhelm in a form of music comes in. Thrash metal added the speed and aggression of punk to an archetypal metal sound. Black metal developed in much the same way, with the funny thing being that early black metal actually IS closer to punk than metal. I suppose the preoccupation with Satan and evil is responsible for black metal's inclusion in the metal genre.

Written by totaliteraliter on 01.02.2008 at 22:25

I'd say rather they gave a greater shit about belonging to a certain different subculture...

For pioneering bands - no. For the followers - yes. We're ignoring the willingness to belong to a subculture though!

Written by totaliteraliter on 01.02.2008 at 22:25

This is the key mistake you're making - how do you differentiate between incorporating other styles into metal and incorporating metal into other styles? Because it seems to me that you don't draw such a line at any point.

You differentiate by listening to any given band's music with an open mind and rationally deciding what the general attitude and direction of the music is. Muse uses plenty of metal elements in their music but they are not a metal band because their indie/britpop/post-grunge direction overwhelms, with metal elements appearing sporadically, as leftovers from grunge or as a means to achieving a particular sound in certain songs. Korn is a metal band because elements of funk, hip-hop and alternative rock appear only to augment their music which is otherwise overwhelmingly within the realm of metal.

The key to all this is still about the distinction between metal as a scene and metal as a form of music. Korn might not easily fit into the metal scene but they definitely fit into the definition of metal as a music form.

Written by jupitreas on 01.02.2008 at 22:37
The key to all this is still about the distinction between metal as a scene and metal as a form of music. Korn might not easily fit into the metal scene but they definitely fit into the definition of metal as a music form.

I think you've perfectly stated here the primary fallacy of your viewpoint. Separating music from culture is an artificial division. Trying to judge music *after* you've taken it out of its natural context is folly and results in this paradox: your line of reasoning has given you a conclusion that is inconsistent with reality. That alone should tell you you're on the wrong path.

Written by jupitreas on 01.02.2008 at 22:37
This is a where a detailed analysis of what musical elements overwhelm in a form of music comes in. Thrash metal added the speed and aggression of punk to an archetypal metal sound. Black metal developed in much the same way, with the funny thing being that early black metal actually IS closer to punk than metal. I suppose the preoccupation with Satan and evil is responsible for black metal's inclusion in the metal genre.

So you agree we shouldn't look at just the musical elements?

Written by jupitreas on 01.02.2008 at 22:37
You differentiate by listening to any given band's music with an open mind and rationally deciding what the general attitude and direction of the music is. Muse uses plenty of metal elements in their music but they are not a metal band because their indie/britpop/post-grunge direction overwhelms, with metal elements appearing sporadically, as leftovers from grunge or as a means to achieving a particular sound in certain songs. Korn is a metal band because elements of funk, hip-hop and alternative rock appear only to augment their music which is otherwise overwhelmingly within the realm of metal.

This is partially because (ignoring above culture discussion) your conclusion hasn't factored in non-auditory artistic elements which are extremely important, and partially because so far the musical metal elements you seem to be working off of are "aggressive" and "bombastic" sounds achieved via rock instruments. How and why do you think such a woefully vague description of the "metal" sound is realistic or practical or based in any sort of study of metal musical development? And if you have a more detailed and tangible description than that which you have displayed, please share...

Written by totaliteraliter on 01.02.2008 at 23:01

I think you've perfectly stated here the primary fallacy of your viewpoint. Separating music from culture is an artificial division. Trying to judge music *after* you've taken it out of its natural context is folly and results in this paradox: your line of reasoning has given you a conclusion that is inconsistent with reality. That alone should tell you you're on the wrong path.

Artificial though it may be, it is necessary to escape genre bigotry.

Written by totaliteraliter on 01.02.2008 at 23:01

So you agree we shouldn't look at just the musical elements?

Lyrical themes should be included in musical elements

Written by totaliteraliter on 01.02.2008 at 23:01

This is partially because (ignoring above culture discussion) your conclusion hasn't factored in non-auditory artistic elements which are extremely important, and partially because so far the musical metal elements you seem to be working off of are "aggressive" and "bombastic" sounds achieved via rock instruments. How and why do you think such a woefully vague description of the "metal" sound is realistic or practical or based in any sort of study of metal musical development? And if you have a more detailed and tangible description than that which you have displayed, please share...

This is far too broad to discuss on a general or universal level. One can definitely do it for specific bands based on a substantially exhaustive amount of knowledge about both true metal and alternative metal bands.

This is the point in the discussion where we should probably choose to agree to disagree. I understand where you are coming from; however, I disagree with what you are saying. I can only hope you can have a similar approach to my views. Either way, it will not change how we treat alternative metal on Metal Storm. By featuring these bands we promote taking pleasure in more than genre satisfaction. We believe this is a worthy ideal and not incompatible with featuring metal bands and being a metal website. I tried to describe the rationale behind this in detail, with focus on the negative sides of seeing metal as a culturally motivated genre. There are also wonderful sides to this, the phenomenally friendly atmosphere at festivals like Wacken being just one example. It can also have what we perceive to be a negative effect on open-mindedness and musical curiosity, which is why alternative metal bands, as well as non-metal bands that we feel might be interesting to people who are metal fans will always have a place here.

Let me give you a theoretical scenario of a metalhead who treats metal as a very hermetic genre. Upon being recommeded to check out the music of say, Soundgarden, this metalhead might refuse to listen to it or be tempted not to tolerate it at all just because the band isnt archetypically metal. Listening to a band shouldnt be determined by how metal they are but by how interesting they are. By sticking to the (sub)culturally narrow definition of metal that you think is beneficial for an academic approach, people might end up missing out on a lot of great music.

Finally, for future reference, I would ask you to refrain from using language that can be interpreted as a personal attack, since it does not aid discussion in any way. If anything, it makes me much less eager to argue with you about a topic that does otherwise lend itself to interesting investigation...

Written by jupitreas on 01.02.2008 at 23:32
Artificial though it may be, it is necessary to escape genre bigotry.

Genre bigotry?

Written by jupitreas on 01.02.2008 at 23:32
Finally, for future reference, I would ask you to refrain from using language that can be interpreted as a personal attack, since it does not aid discussion in any way. If anything, it makes me much less eager to argue with you about a topic that does otherwise lend itself to interesting investigation...

I don't recall using such language but whatever...

Written by jupitreas on 01.02.2008 at 23:32
Let me give you a theoretical scenario of a metalhead who treats metal as a very hermetic genre. Upon being recommeded to check out the music of say, Soundgarden, this metalhead might refuse to listen to it or be tempted not to tolerate it at all just because the band isnt archetypically metal. Listening to a band shouldnt be determined by how metal they are but by how interesting they are. By sticking to the (sub)culturally narrow definition of metal that you think is beneficial for an academic approach, people might end up missing out on a lot of great music.

Your solution to getting people who only listen to metal to listen to other forms of music is to expand the definition of metal?

Written by jupitreas on 01.02.2008 at 23:32
This is far too broad to discuss on a general or universal level. One can definitely do it for specific bands based on a substantially exhaustive amount of knowledge about both true metal and alternative metal bands.

This is the point in the discussion where we should probably choose to agree to disagree. I understand where you are coming from; however, I disagree with what you are saying. I can only hope you can have a similar approach to my views. Either way, it will not change how we treat alternative metal on Metal Storm. By featuring these bands we promote taking pleasure in more than genre satisfaction. We believe this is a worthy ideal and not incompatible with featuring metal bands and being a metal website. I tried to describe the rationale behind this in detail, with focus on the negative sides of seeing metal as a culturally motivated genre. There are also wonderful sides to this, the phenomenally friendly atmosphere at festivals like Wacken being just one example. It can also have what we perceive to be a negative effect on open-mindedness and musical curiosity, which is why alternative metal bands, as well as non-metal bands that we feel might be interesting to people who are metal fans will always have a place here.

OK, this is how I'm perceiving the difference in positions: I'm interested in defining music based on accurate, measurable characteristics that reflect the reality of the situation. This includes the context of the music, of course, and it is an approach that is the most neutral and appropriate in an academic sense. Your definition doesn't pretend to be neutral but seems to be rather ideologically driven and tied to promotional concerns, and disregards in-depth analysis of the art in favour of vague categories that more easily fit bands you feel need "inclusion" for whatever reason.

I'm interested in understanding music, which is why things like depth and accuracy in analysis of the art, history and culture of any genre is the most important to me, and why I tend to disagree with approaches that are based on things other than these. I want to make clear that I'm not against the activities of this site, I've just been interested (as I often am) in understanding why people look at these terms and ideas in different ways.

Written by jupitreas on 01.02.2008 at 23:32

Let me give you a theoretical scenario of a metalhead who treats metal as a very hermetic genre. Upon being recommeded to check out the music of say, Soundgarden, this metalhead might refuse to listen to it or be tempted not to tolerate it at all just because the band isnt archetypically metal. Listening to a band shouldnt be determined by how metal they are but by how interesting they are. By sticking to the (sub)culturally narrow definition of metal that you think is beneficial for an academic approach, people might end up missing out on a lot of great music.

I really don't think putting actual quality bands next to the nu hype is going to bring the desired results.
It's much more likely to work for people who already listen to "alternative metal"

The metalheads you seem to address will just assume whatever can be found in this section is downright crap.

Wow, some of these arguments of genre definition are absolutely ridiculous. Honestly, this is the first I'm hearing of people lumping nu metal into the same bunch as alternative metal. No one I know ever makes comparisons between Slipknot and Soundgarden. Two completely different bands and genres. As far as I understand it, the forum moderators simply chose 3 classifications for metal sub-genres to be under. So deal with it, I don't see anything wrong with what they've done. Genre classification is a subject that can be fought over for eons because there's always going to be bands that push the boundaries of genre definitions. Does anyone know why? It's because music is meant to be interpretive and innovative. If you ask any band to classify themselves, most will be offended by the proposal. Bands don't feel they should fall under a particular category. I interviewed Lord Tim from the band Dungeon/LORD a while ago and he talked about his displeasure about being called "power metal" because the music has so many other dimensions and influences, which is quite true.

The 3 classifications on this forum work fine. Alternative metal may be a broader classification, but it has to be as BitterCold pointed out.

People here are talking about open-mindedness but then they go on to insult and put down bands of other genres. Even if it's a nu-metal band, your opinion of them may differ from someone else's and that needs to be respected. So talking about people's prejudices towards alternative metal is absolutely ridiculous when you hold the exact same prejudices about other genres.

I bet most people here despise pop and rap as well and do not see those genres as a serious genre of music, which is wrong as well. I was lucky enough to come from a background where I wasn't exposed to heavy metal straight away and instead grew up with many different genres and was friends with people who like different types of music. So now at this point in my life I can say that I have a respect for all musical genres and sub-genres and more importantly an understanding of them and even a liking.

Most people hold prejudices over other sub-genres, even if they're all metal. People have prejudices over other people's religions, even though they're all still monotheistic religions stemming from the same bible. It's just human nature.

Written by Guest on 03.02.2008 at 05:08

People here are talking about open-mindedness but then they go on to insult and put down bands of other genres. Even if it's a nu-metal band, your opinion of them may differ from someone else's and that needs to be respected. So talking about people's prejudices towards alternative metal is absolutely ridiculous when you hold the exact same prejudices about other genres.

Ah, but there is a massive difference.

Re-read the first couple pages of the thread.

I call out and mock Manowar - a specific band I have listened to, whose lyrics I've read - and decided I don't like them. I gave them an honest listen.

Now, how does that compare to some of the folks who have come on this thread and bashed on "alternative metal" for being "nu-metal" without knowing the first thing about the majority of the bands that are listed under this umbrella?

The difference is, I rip on Manowar because I dislike them - but I've also listened to other "melodic metal" bands, many of whom I like and whose virtues I extol.

H-U-G-E difference.


I'll give credit to people who go out and listen to Sleep, Godflesh, and other alternative metal bands and simply decide they don't like them. That's fine, I'll credit them for making the effort.


Being open-minded does not mean liking everything.

Written by Guest on 03.02.2008 at 05:08

People here are talking about open-mindedness but then they go on to insult and put down bands of other genres. Even if it's a nu-metal band, your opinion of them may differ from someone else's and that needs to be respected. So talking about people's prejudices towards alternative metal is absolutely ridiculous when you hold the exact same prejudices about other genres.

Was that aimed at my last post? I admit I will openly bash nu metal for the poor quality music created by most bands within the field. But that doesn't change the fact I listen to such bands as Disturbed, Drowning Pool, Guano Apes or Machine Head. Just because I enjoy some music doesn't mean I don't see serious drawbacks that may discourage majority of metalheads from listening to it.

This discussion has taken a very interesting turn, save for a few pseudoattacks of course. I do have a question though. Is Nirvana considered a metal band in this site? They are a lot closer to hardcore punk and alternative rock like the Pixies and Mudhoney if you ask me.

Nirvana are a grunge band, so Punk Rock/Alternative Rock/Heavy Metal. Well, according to the definition of this alternative metal here, they should be considered alternative metal... Especially that apparently Soundgarden are put in here as well.

But then again, grunge is seen as one of the genres in the rock forum.

So. Good question, actually.

Well, see the thing that bothers me about where this discussion has gone is that the initial post that started this thread was asking "why is alternative metal so unpopular here?" and not why people bag it. From what I understood, this topic was to discuss the qualities of alternative metal that keep fans of melodic or extreme metal from enjoying them. Honestly, who really cares what idiots have to say about music or anything for that matter if they don't have sufficient knowledge on the topic? I've run into so many people so far in life whose minds you can't change about anything. If they think alternative metal is shit, then they'll continue to think it's shit, even if you come up with some sort of scientific way of proving it's the best musical genre ever created. My point is, I think you guys are arguing about definitions of alternative metal and how people see it as something it isn't, whereas the real thing that should be questioned is the quality and characteristics of the music, and even lyrics.

Even people that refuse to give it a chance are obviously turned off by something within the genre. It's like why some people like Bon Jovi because it's feel-good music, it's simple and catchy, and a majority of people will enjoy it. Some people will prefer some catchy heavy grooves because that's all they're looking for and don't even want to consider trying something like alternative metal out. A friend of mine who listens to rock hates anything he terms as "artsy", he dislikes heavy metal in general because of the lyrical themes the bands have and the general innovation of their music. It's his choice to think that about metal and I personally consider those types of people complete idiots, but I understand where they're coming from.

My main point is that everyone's going to clash with opinions all the time. It's because people are different and have different needs for the music they listen to.

Btw, I read the first few pages. It seems like there was only one person that said something negative about alternative metal and 1 or 2 that simply stated their opinion from what they knew and were instantly jumped at for associating alternative metal with nu metal. Fact is people will only associate alternative metal with the more mainstream stuff they have heard from the genre. It's like how most metalheads would judge rap music for what they hear on the radio or TV, whereas there's a whole underground rap scene going on. You can't be angry at people who judge genres by the most popular bands from it... you can't really expect people to hear every single band out there. Even if they did, judging them by 1 or 2 songs is unfair as well. As you said... Blow Your Speakers is a shit song. If I had to judge Manowar by that song alone, I'd hate Manowar as well.

Actually, my apologies... I noticed there's a few more people making slightly negative posts. I haven't read ALL the pages, but I get the basic idea of what you're talking about now. I find it kind of funny how everyone is trying to defend alternative metal by saying it shouldn't be judged solely on the grounds of Slipknot and Korn, which is a bit unfair on the fans of those bands. I have to say that there have been suggestions made to listen to other alternative bands besides Korn and Slipknot, but I must say that I have done so in the past and have entire albums by those bands as well and my opinion of them isn't that much different from Korn and Slipknot. Musical differences are there, but my rating of them would be pretty similar. It's not that farfetched to call alternative bands MTV bands because I have seen many of them on Headbangers Ball and hardly ever see any power/traditional bands. There's definitely more fans of alternative metal in Australia as well that think power metal is a joke.

It's funny because I came on this board seeking a place that didn't give melodic metal bands so much shit because it's usually alternative metal bands that everyone respects and listens to. It looks like the opposite is true here.

Written by Guest on 03.02.2008 at 15:56

It's funny because I came on this board seeking a place that didn't give melodic metal bands so much shit because it's usually alternative metal bands that everyone respects and listens to. It looks like the opposite is true here.

Haha yeah, here we're fans of Melodic and Extreme stuff.

Written by Guest on 03.02.2008 at 11:55

Nirvana are a grunge band, so Punk Rock/Alternative Rock/Heavy Metal. Well, according to the definition of this alternative metal here, they should be considered alternative metal... Especially that apparently Soundgarden are put in here as well.

But then again, grunge is seen as one of the genres in the rock forum.

So. Good question, actually.

There is a big difference between Soundgarden and Nirvana, though. Soundgarden actually is a metal band, give or take a few alternative rock influences. They had a very capable singer, who could sing in a very alternative manner but that could wail and hit notes with the best metal vocalists out there. They also sounded very much Sabbath-esque in Badmotorfinger. The riffs were very doom like as well. So, they were a metal band.

On the other hand, Nirvana is grunge/punk rock band. They were very much grunge in their debut and some parts of in vitro. However, they sounded very much like a punk band in their previous work before Nevermind and in the remaining parts of in vitro. Save for a couple of classic metal influences, they were a grunge band like Pearl Jam.

Out of the grunge movement, Alice and Chains and Soundgarden were the only metal bands that I know of.

Well, Niravana also sounded very metal on their debut album, although not nearly as much as Soundgarden and Alice In Chains did...

I wouldnt call Nirvana a metal band personally, although they DID have a lot of metal influences and therefore calling them metal wouldnt be such a long shot.

I agree on that.

I talked to this punk band my girlfriend loves and some of their influences are heavy metal.

I completely forgot about Alice In Chains. I absolutely love this band. They have a very unique sound and out of the grunge/alternative metal crossover bands, I reckon they're the best. If people have doubts about alternative metal, they should really check out this band because it's truly one of the better bands out there (in any genre).

Oh, also, seeing how genres are divided in the forum, with Melodic, Extreme, and Alternative (kinda of like, 'the others'), does this mean every other genre that isn't melodic and extreme? So, Avant-Garde, Metalcore, Hardcore, Nu, 'pure' Alternative, Industrial, Experimental and sorry if I miss anything, all that is Alternative, acording to the definitions given by this page?