I've never read or seen anything that states what a band must do to be a metal band. I've never seen any rules or guidelines. Is it the lyrical content? The distortion of the guitars? The vocals? The appearance of band members? What does it take? I've never thought of this until now. Take for example AC/DC. Some people consider them a heavy metal band. But the band themselves does not. Ugly Kid Joe on their website says they are a metal band, but some people label them as grunge or alternative. So many bands could or could not classified as metal. So i want to know what you guys think. I'm not talking about sub genres but metal as a whole.

A bass, A drum, A Guitar, Distortion, Power Chords, Palm Muting, Loud Drumming, Some solos, Low tuning, Fast paced or doomish tempo... 4/4, and for the lyrics it does not matter vocals can be clean, growling or screaming, and a plus is the originality factor I guess.

Not necessarily all that at once obviously.
Mix some of those elements I guess and you get a metal band?

Great another What is Metal? discussion... Woohoo!

Band A is metal if and only if
1) it would be considered metal by a certain authoritative community or members thereof if they were to know the band.
2) the above determination is based on a sufficient family resemblance to bands who're already considered metal.

That's the only appropriately strict and inclusive rule I can think of. In other words: what's metal is ultimately decided by some community of music fans, journalists, musicians and other "experts", and the definition can change through history. There isn't necessarily one unquestioned authority, and there may be genuine disagreement (as opposed to just not knowing better) about borderline cases. There are no necessary musical or extramusical traits that make a metal band, but there's a family resemblance of having "enough in common" with other metal bands to be categorized as one of them.

In addition to the above (though it is included in the expert authority clause) I would say that the band must not fit another genre better. On the fringes where genres intersect there are bands that resemble metal but wouldn't ultimately be labelled such, because they're still closer to some other genre.

My question is awfully theoretical, but it's the best one I can give to your question. If you really want to participate in the authoritative community that defines metal (not that there's a lot of actual redefining going on at the individual level), then it's just a matter of practice. You need to advance from particular examples to a general feel for what constitutes metal. Listen to it and you'll know.

Long hair or GTFO.

Hmmm..this is really very much serious discussion....meta is an essential part..

Written by Edmund Fogg on 18.11.2012 at 05:51

Great another What is Metal? discussion... Woohoo!

My thoughts exactly.

Written by Boxcar Willy on 21.11.2012 at 18:01

My thoughts exactly.

And mine. This constant need to define that which is already so well documented, it really is a pointless waste of time which invites equally pointless personal interpretation.

Written by IronAngel on 19.11.2012 at 22:56

1) it would be considered metal by a certain authoritative community or members thereof if they were to know the band.

Isn't this a little "If a tree fell in the woods..." etc? I can't say I really agree. If I were to create a Black Sabbath clone in my bedroom and was the only person to know about it I don't think it would make it any less metal as I possess the knowledge of it and its associations with the genre. Unless you meant something else by this, in which case disregard my comments.

Written by [user id=4365] on 21.11.2012 at 19:37

Written by IronAngel on 19.11.2012 at 22:56

1) it would be considered metal by a certain authoritative community or members thereof if they were to know the band.

Isn't this a little "If a tree fell in the woods..." etc? I can't say I really agree. If I were to create a Black Sabbath clone in my bedroom and was the only person to know about it I don't think it would make it any less metal as I possess the knowledge of it and its associations with the genre. Unless you meant something else by this, in which case disregard my comments.

I thinjk what he means is that if, for example, all so-called authoritive figures in metal decided to claim thrash metal NOT to be metal that it would be not metal. Which imo is totally ludicrous since alll the characteristics of metal are still present.

Written by Marcel Hubregtse on 21.11.2012 at 19:40

I thinjk what he means is that if, for example, all so-called authoritive figures in metal decided to claim thrash metal NOT to be metal that it would be not metal. Which imo is totally ludicrous since alll the characteristics of metal are still present.

I think I see what's being said.

No, I specifically said "considered metal if they were to know the band" in an attempt to cover just your kind of example; something can be metal even if it isn't widely known and considered metal, just in case it were to be considered metal if it was known. And it may be that someone knows your band but doesn't consider it metal, but it would still be metal if the authoritative group at large would consider it metal (and this someone is just mistaken).


But Marcel, they wouldn't be the characteristics of metal if they weren't considered that. The genre traits of music aren't a fact of nature, after all. Of course thrash wouldn't be metal if it wasn't considered metal; I can't even make sense of an alternative.

The "authorities" are pretty vague and I didn't want to specify them. I imagine it would be some kind of a consensus of listeners, critics, musicians and musicologists, with an emphasis on the former two, possibly leaving room for minority opinion to gain that status if it's better argued. But that's really beside the point; the point is that there has to be someone to define metal. It doesn't just exist independent of people. (And it's a historical concept like any other, so its contents can and will change over time.)

I think to be metal you must play metal music
Really this is an unnecessary discussion

The ability to conduct electricity and heat?

I think the energy is the most important thing for a metalband. The riffs and vocals are important too, but the energy is the main thing in a metalband. Thats the reason why "Nu Metal" Bands are considered as Metal. They may not play typical heavy metal riffs but they have the right energy.

Heavy and aggressive instrumentation, dissonance, energy, and so forth.

Written by [user id=137345] on 03.01.2013 at 11:54

Simple, passing through the filters of the metal gods at metal archives.. if its not on the archives its not metal

I hope you're joking...

Written by [user id=137345] on 03.01.2013 at 13:03


on the gods part yes, on not being metal if its not on the archives, i am serious.. they do check stuff like metal riffing and other stuff considered metal and even explain to whoever submitted the band why it can't be accepted, so yeah, i trust them on judging what is metal and what is not.. e.g some deathcore bands are accepted and others not based on how the metal weighs as compared to core, so they are pretty legit to me.. and killswitch engage being accepted further makes me decide that they truly check on how metal something is..

they are totally off on quite a few bands not being included who are way more metal than for example most of the power metal bands in the database. Plus their genre descriptions are quite often a joke too.
btw core as such is any sort of music. So it is impossible to say how the metal weighs to the core, than you have to specify what sort of core.

Like I said, they are totally not to be trusted as to what constitutes metal and what doesn't. Loads of metal bands such as Slipknot are excluded solely on the basis of them not liking the band and it being cool to bash that band.

Oh, not this old chestnut again...

I've nothing to add to what Marcel just said about MA, as it is totally correct. The last line in the above post just about says all that needs to be said really about their inclusion/exclusion policy.

Written by [user id=137345] on 03.01.2013 at 13:32

I for sure remain adamant that ma is the final judge of what is metal and what is not..

once you have been listening to metal for longer than you have now you will start to realize how wrong MA is on so many bands being not metal according to THEM.

A big fucking lol to MA being any sort of judge at all. It's simply one of the worst "judges" I've seen specially in regards to grindcore and sometimes they ditch quite a lot of drone influenced bands. Yet you can find quite a great deal of pure ambient projects. They only base their database for their own tastes and nothing more. No objectivity whatsoever.

Written by Marcel Hubregtse on 03.01.2013 at 13:35
once you have been listening to metal for longer than you have now you will start to realize how wrong MA is on so many bands being not metal according to THEM.

I would like to be as kind as you but no... I saw it from the very beginning that MA's genre policies were absolute bullshit.

Written by X-Ray Rod on 03.01.2013 at 13:56
A big fucking lol to MA being any sort of judge at all. It's simply one of the worst "judges" I've seen specially in regards to grindcore and sometimes they ditch quite a lot of drone influenced bands. Yet you can find quite a great deal of pure ambient projects. They only base their database for their own tastes and nothing more. No objectivity whatsoever.

Exactly. The only way such a metal encyclopedia can have credibility, is for the rejection/inclusion of bands to be based solely on the music, and to be judged in an objective, rather than a subjective manner. It can only be taken seriously as an authority on metal, if it's coming from a place of non-bias. This is not the case with MA. Their criteria for what consititutes metal and what doesn't is steeped in their own personal bias, and is not entirely based on musical factors. Therefore, they can be dismissed as any sort of authority on metal.

Written by X-Ray Rod on 03.01.2013 at 13:56
I would like to be as kind as you but no... I saw it from the very beginning that MA's genre policies were absolute bullshit.

Yep, me too. It was obvious to me very soon after I first became aware of MA, that their criteria for "being metal" was flawed to put it mildly.

Written by [user id=137345] on 03.01.2013 at 15:59

when i encounter a genuine metal band that has been rejected.

such as Slipknot

try explaining to me why they aren't a metal band and what they are in that case.

Written by [user id=137345] on 03.01.2013 at 16:27

i confess that i don't know but the experts say it isn't and therefore it isn't,

... So I take it you're a religious kinda guy

Written by [user id=137345] on 03.01.2013 at 15:59

but on the other hand perhaps i might change it in future when i encounter a genuine metal band that has been rejected.

Some bands that are not considered metal by MA:






Apparently none of these are metal. Yet, somehow these are on MA:



.

Time to get reconsidering things it seems. Of course, if you've spent your life basing what is and isn't metal on MA's misguided principles it's highly doubtful you will.

I ask you once again "what experts?" the people over at MA are as much experts as the staff here at MS.

As for a fully metal album? Then loads of featured bands there can immediately be dismissed as being non-metal as well.

And like JOOE said why feature totally non-metal (not an ounce of metal in their music) band such as Hexvessel?

If they can't hear metal in Yakuza but can hear it in Elend they really need their hearing checked.

I will ask my question again, what makes the staff over at MA experts and not the staff at Metal Storm or other big metal paper magazines and webzines?

I want to have seen what Xphalanx has seen in terms of the MA higher ups that make them so all knowing, because I'm fairly sure he's not had a single conversation with them.

This really does sound like blind religious fanaticism. Following a cult heard of people that follow all-knowing, yet unknown individuals with no evidence of their qualifications aside from the existence of book (a database in this instance).

That post by Joe, just sums it all up. Tombs, Agoraphobic Nosebleed, Yakuza etc aren't metal? Geez...

Heck, even Slipknot are the height of metal extremity, compared to those non-metal bands that Joe posted as being accepted as "metal" on MA.