Self explanatory question. SoaD have long defied easy classification and am I'm curious to know what the general MS population thinks they are.

Keep comments related to the question (in other words no "System of a Down are shit metal heeeerrp deeerrrrp" nonsense.)

------


My opinion in the subject (taken from here if anyone wants to see them in context):

"Nu metal" was coined by a Kerrang! journalist I believe.

Influence doesn't define a band's genre, nor does its image. The music does. SoaD may incorporate a variety of influences including punk, world music, possibly some minor hip-hop and rap and so on, but the result is unequivocally metal. The last 2 albums may be regarded as alternative rock but the first 3 are quintessentially alternative metal, for the simple reason it isn't primarily rock, it isn't grunge, nor is it hip-hop, rap, punk or anything else when looking at it from the simplest angle. Deduction and weighing up what is in front of you leads to the obvious conclusion, and in SoaD's case I don't think it's ever been much of a challenge coming to a conclusion that the generally shaky umbrella term "alternative metal" suits them almost ideally, especially when compared to other nu metal acts like Limp Bizkit, Korn and Linkin Park.

Furthermore, what bands think their music is is of no consequence. If it was the case then Children of Bodom would be black metal.

As for their Nu Metal image, I'm pretty sure they dropped that after the s/t. All the single videos from Toxicity were them dressed in pretty standard attire. No silly make-up etc.

As for other bands using Nu Metal traits: Korn had Follow The Leader which was heavily hip-hop laden, and possibly Life is Peachy in fact. How they became so associated with famous rappers. P.O.D. also rapped in a lot of their music if I recall, and Slipknot did indeed use turntables, quite a bit in fact, it was part of their sound. The DJ from Slipknot has his own project called DJ Starscream (I think). Corey was also considered to use a somewhat rap-like style as well. SoaD generally does not use any of these traits, like the bands mentioned here, along with Linkin Park, Limp Bizkit etc. and should be differentiated.

Deftones ceased to be Nu Metal after their first album, and the likes of Disturbed and Godsmack I don't believe are largely regarded as Nu Metal in this day and age. As for Sevendust and Drowning Pool, I don't know how associated they were with Nu Metal but these days I don't believe they are, though I would have to check up on that. This serves as an example of how bands legitimately break away from Nu Metal roots and cease to be associated with it, even if they were part of the scene and highlights how a band's style is not incumbent on their beginnings or associations.

In reality then, the only thing that keep SoaD within the Nu Metal umbrella is their early image and time of inception as well as some locational factors. I'm generally not into revisionism but in this instance believe it's more than fine to re-assess them on musical merits. No one should debate whether or not they were part of a scene, in this case Nu Metal; we're all well aware that they were, I am simply pointing out that applying a standard which was nothing more than overzealous marketing by Kerrang! and other publications 15 years ago shouldn't remain today when we can take a more balanced look at their style and sound, which I believe puts SoaD somewhere other than Nu Metal which does not suitably represent their music.

I don't think one can regard Nu Metal as a broad umbrella term either, as it's generally accepted that it's part and parcel of alternative metal and rock's tapestry, which itself is one of the biggest and vaguest umbrella terms of them all. Nu Metal's characteristics are easy to define, whereas Alternative Metal is not, hence why SoaD could ideally belong in that cat. While all Nu Metal bands are Alternative Metal, not all Alternative Metal bands are Nu Metal.

Quote:
Personally to me saying SOAD are prog metal (and ostensibly alternative metal, rock or anything else - !J.O.O.E.!) and not Nu-metal is like saying Black Sabbath were Doom. It's retrospective reassignment based on current values and not reflecting the actual historical and overall stylistic context.

Aside from the obvious observation that the style does not allude to Nu Metal, my opinion is quite different. Sabbath were seen as precursors to a sound which is applied in a retrospective fashion because numerous bands adopted it in to what is regarded as "doom" today whereas System were simply lumped in with a scene with little regard to their sound which didn't lend itself to something which had already been established. In this instance the current values, i.e. the analysis of their music, is more valid than a simple history lesson which basically highlights record labels dressing them up in a particular way to fit a movement. It's entirely ridiculous to use that as the key basis of their historical (and future) categorisation. They were part of the Nu Metal scene, but they weren't Nu Metal. That is what history should read. Mercyful Fate may have been considered part of the black metal scene, but only a dummy would call them black metal these days (proto-black perhaps). Effectively the same thing, though not exactly

I suppose I should state, as some others like to allude, that I'm not biased because of a dislike of Nu Metal. In fact I really enjoy Nu Metal as a whole so my opinions are not based on bias in that respect.

I voted for alternative metal. Admittedly, I am not overly familiar with much nu-metal but from what I have heard of them they don't really sound that much like the accepted nu-metal bands. To me they are also metal enough to be alternative "metal" as opposed to rock, which is more just sound based. I really don't see why they would be referred to as progressive, other than by those who just loosely use the term progressive to describe unique sounding stuff. So it was basically process of elimination and I think "alternative metal" encompasses them well.

Granted, I haven't listened to a ton of SOAD songs.

This thread has not caught on as much as I'd hoped

Written by [user id=4365] on 30.05.2014 at 01:44

This thread has not caught on as much as I'd hoped

Probably because people are afraid of reading that advance intoductory essay on classification of SoaD's music :p
I personally know fuck about nu metal. I'd say they are alternative metal but this statement is free from any strong reason

Lol, you may have me blocked but you can still read people's thread descriptions on threads they've opened (I double checked by blocking someone and looking at a thread they opened).

What a cowardly cop-out.

Voted for alternative. They shared some influences with nu metal, but most of all they were marketed as nu metal (and it worked)

Agreed with the "essay" Joe wrote as an introduction and voting alternative for the same reasons (and those listed in the band thread previously). Perhaps they had some minor elements of nu metal but overall their sound was far more branched out and progressive compared to the likes of Korn, Limp Bizkit, etc. and the only real concrete reason for them being considered nu metal is the fact they were marketed as such due to their physical appearance around the time their debut hit the shelves.

Somehow I condidering all, since there are elements of all genres as I recall, but I dunno full albums onky video songs and radio songs ... not my band

Alternative rock is probably the closest of the genres you listed. No metal at all as far as I'm concerned.

Surprised at how many people consider them Alternative metal. I underestimated you lot. Good show.

"System of a Down are shit metal heeeerrp deeerrrrp". No but seriously, I'd say Alternative Rock. Not because I know what I'm talking about, because I don't, but more because back when they very popular at school (the "Steal This Album period"), they were not considered Metal. At least not by my friends, who were avid fans. I had the endure the long car rides that consisted in "who's going to shout the lyrics the loudest" contests.

Written by Ilham on 05.06.2014 at 01:56

"System of a Down are shit metal heeeerrp deeerrrrp". No but seriously, I'd say Alternative Rock. Not because I know what I'm talking about, because I don't, but more because back when they very popular at school (the "Steal This Album period"), they were not considered Metal. At least not by my friends, who were avid fans. I had the endure the long car rides that consisted in "who's going to shout the lyrics the loudest" contests.

Aye, back in the day I think them and Nu Metal were generally not considered metulz. These days though I think they've slowely moved out of the Nu Metal picture and seen as somewhat of a unique entity. I'd have trouble not considering the first couple of albums metal, and most of Steal This Album though these days. Especially compared to all that fluffy euro flower metal floating around. The last two though I would say nod more toward alternative rock though, for the most part. It's cool though, that's what I love about the band. Not only can people not figure out their genre, they can't even figure out if they're metal or not.

Written by [user id=4365] on 05.06.2014 at 02:00

Aye, back in the day I think them and Nu Metal were generally not considered metulz. These days though I think they've slowely moved out of the Nu Metal picture and seen as somewhat of a unique entity. I'd have trouble not considering the first couple of albums metal, and most of Steal This Album though these days. Especially compared to all that fluffy euro flower metal floating around. The last two though I would say nod more toward alternative rock though, for the most part. It's cool though, that's what I love about the band. Not only can people not figure out their genre, they can't even figure out if they're metal or not.

Well, see, you talked about flower metal. It's interesting you said that. I was a lot into traditional Heavy, and a lot into Gothenburg/MD and I didn't like SOAD because of the screams. To me it sounded way heavier than what I was listening to. I have to say I like an occasional SOAD album a LOT more than before. I guess I grew up to stand the vocals that I used to find unusual, and the hype finally going down made my hipster self feel less guilty about giving in .

Written by [user id=4365] on 05.06.2014 at 02:00

Written by Ilham on 05.06.2014 at 01:56

"System of a Down are shit metal heeeerrp deeerrrrp". No but seriously, I'd say Alternative Rock. Not because I know what I'm talking about, because I don't, but more because back when they very popular at school (the "Steal This Album period"), they were not considered Metal. At least not by my friends, who were avid fans. I had the endure the long car rides that consisted in "who's going to shout the lyrics the loudest" contests.

Aye, back in the day I think them and Nu Metal were generally not considered metulz. These days though I think they've slowely moved out of the Nu Metal picture and seen as somewhat of a unique entity. I'd have trouble not considering the first couple of albums metal, and most of Steal This Album though these days. Especially compared to all that fluffy euro flower metal floating around. The last two though I would say nod more toward alternative rock though, for the most part. It's cool though, that's what I love about the band. Not only can people not figure out their genre, they can't even figure out if they're metal or not.

The comparison to European power metal is pretty irrelevant, especially when as far as I can see you present no reason as to why SOAD should be considered metal over European power metal. Many people seem to think that any band that uses distortion or sounds "heavy" in any way must be metal, yet a band can easily sound "heavy" without being metal (f.ex. hardcore punk). It comes down to the combined musical characteristics that bind together the overarching genre. SOAD lacked that from the beginning.

Personally, I'd scrap the whole "alternative rock/metal" debate altogether. They are some form of rock but "alternative rock/metal" tend to be ill-defined as far as characteristics go, and its unclear which elements actually put a band in either.

Written by Wingtorte on 05.06.2014 at 21:33


The comparison to European power metal is pretty irrelevant, especially when as far as I can see you present no reason as to why SOAD should be considered metal over European power metal. Many people seem to think that any band that uses distortion or sounds "heavy" in any way must be metal, yet a band can easily sound "heavy" without being metal (f.ex. hardcore punk). It comes down to the combined musical characteristics that bind together the overarching genre. SOAD lacked that from the beginning.

Personally, I'd scrap the whole "alternative rock/metal" debate altogether. They are some form of rock but "alternative rock/metal" tend to be ill-defined as far as characteristics go, and its unclear which elements actually put a band in either.

I wasn't suggesting that European power metal was not metal, I was merely highlighting how a metal band can exhibit distinctly un-metal qualities as many people may consider it. While your point about about power metal is true, the fact remains that metal, in terms of structure, has diverged into a vast number of areas to the point that technically a large amount of metal could no longer be considered metal because it may share almost nothing in common with its foundations. I think the best method people have these days for defining a metal band is more or less through instinct; simple observation of sounds, methods used, tone and so forth. For me it's obvious that SoaD drew upon metal in their first few albums, along with punk and perhaps some other influences, though those influences were subservient to the metal components.

Metal itself is ill defined considering its vastnesses, but a measure of heaviness is as a legitimate way to approach the "is it or is not" metal debate than anything else I can think of when taken into consideration with other factors. People are dismissive of this for some reason, just like people insist that vocals don't define a genre, when in actual practise they do all the time, every day. Hardcore punk is definable from metal because of homogeneous characteristics. Despite this, "heaviness" in metal, which can translate into a number of forms including guitar tone, pace, aggressiveness and so on, many of which are indicative of, if not totally unique to, metal and is one of the only common elements across metal. If you suck away the distortion and vocals of a tech death band you end up with jazzy, prog rock album in all likelihood. I can think of no "rock" albums as "heavy" as the first few SoaD albums so I fail to see why that simple and ostensibly true observation shouldn't be factored in to SoaD's genre make-up. As such SoaD are not rock outside of the fact it, like most metal, falls under the umbrella of rock in the broadest sense.

One may argue that Darkthrone were no longer metal after their death metal debut (and Blaze... I suppose) because their structure was closer aligned to punk than it was metal. Of course instinct and understanding of aesthetic, tone and sound overrides that. Just like instinct would lead a person to realise that SoaD are largely metal more than rock in the "combined musical characteristics that bind together the overarching genre," (metal) despite the fact there are few if any true unifying characteristic of metal in this day and age.

You admit yourself that they are a form or something but you haven't elaborated on that. I don't see why then you consider them rock, and not metal, just because the tropes of alternative sub-genres are not well defined. You may as well relegate all alternative metal to rock status then.

Written by Wingtorte on 05.06.2014 at 21:33

The comparison to European power metal is pretty irrelevant, especially when as far as I can see you present no reason as to why SOAD should be considered metal over European power metal. Many people seem to think that any band that uses distortion or sounds "heavy" in any way must be metal, yet a band can easily sound "heavy" without being metal (f.ex. hardcore punk). It comes down to the combined musical characteristics that bind together the overarching genre. SOAD lacked that from the beginning.

Personally, I'd scrap the whole "alternative rock/metal" debate altogether. They are some form of rock but "alternative rock/metal" tend to be ill-defined as far as characteristics go, and its unclear which elements actually put a band in either.

My two cents, if you still want to hear about this after the novel Joe wrote you .

I was merely referring to a period when the only point of comparison for me and my friends, who were between 11 and 14, was the heaviness of the music you listened to. We were either too stupid, too young, or too cut off from the rest of the world, in this country, to have a real understanding of metal. As almost nothing leaked through the mediterranean sea at the time before internet and illegal satellite hookups. But you can say it was a combination of all of the above.

Hey, he quoted me after all =P

Yeaaaaaah... But I wanted to say that I am not one to make genre mistakes like that.

If alternative metal is a valid classification, it's really just what describes them the best. They are alternative as hell, and they are clearly metal rather than just alternative rock. Only someone who doesn't listen to very much alternative would think SOAD and other alternative metal bands aren't heavily influenced by metal in comparison to normal alternative rock. Sure, they have some softer songs, and can be rather experimental to the point where it goes beyond just the usual alternative experimentation, but overall the fit the alternative metal label to a tee.

Only 4 out of 28 people think SoaD are Nu Metal. Genuinely thought it would be a higher percentage than that.

Written by deadone on 23.06.2014 at 06:22

Heaviness doesn't imply influenced by Metal it could also mean hard rock, hardcore and industrial or even other alternative rock/metal bands.

It's clear a lot of Nu-metal bands were influenced by Korn and Faith No More, nether of which were pure metal (FNM is only "metal" on some occasions even on earlier albums).

I never said such. I meant exactly what I said, if you don't think System of a Down is heavily metal influenced and thus alternative metal rather then alternative rock, then you don't listen to much alterantive rock. Plenty of alternative rock bands are "heavy" but not metal influenced, such as Sonic Youth, though the modern alternative rock sound is influenced by metal via grunge. The fact is 80's alt rock had very little metal influence, though heavy hardcore influence, so the metal influence in 90's alterantive rock really stands out. However, it's still clear that System of a Down is much more heavily influenced by metal than any post-grunge band, thus they are alternative metal, not alternative rock. Not only do Korn and Faith no more have nothing to do with what I was talking about, but it doesn't matter if Korn and Faith No More aren't "pure metal" anyway, neither is thrash, they are both heavily influenced by metal.

Oh, and if a band is heavy because it's influenced by alternative metal bands then it is metal influenced, duh. Influence is transitive as long as the influencing aspect isn't dropped.

Written by deadone on 06.06.2014 at 03:11

And hardcore appears to have been completely absorbed as a Metal genre and not a sub genre of punk.

That's because the stuff people call hardcore nowadays seems to be more influenced by metal than it is by punk, if you compare traditional hardcore punk with these new bands the difference and thus metal influence is super obvious. The fact is metal influence has became more dominant to the point were people are forgetting the bands that aren't metal influenced are even rock, people are no more likely to call hard rock metal then in the past.

Written by deadone on 24.06.2014 at 07:58

Basically if a metalhead likes a certain band, that band is then defined a a metal band even if it's got nothing to do with metal.

I'm not arguing whether or not SOAD is a metal band, that is another discussion, I'm just saying they are clearly alternative metal rather than plain old alterantive rock. Pretty much all alternative metal bands are more based in alternative than heavy metal (Pantera, Machine Head, and White Zombie are all groove metal), but if they weren't heavily metal influenced they wouldn't be alteranative metal, they would be post-hardcore or noise rock or something, or just plain old alternative rock. You seem to be falling for the Metal Archives fallacy, where something is only metal if it's based around "metal riffs", whatever the hell that is supposed to mean, and riffs can only be metal influenced if they already fit the scope of "metal riffs", which doesn't really make any sense when you think about it (the ironic part is that if you were actually going to objectively rate metal by that criteria, black metal wouldn't qualify as metal either, Black Sabbath would probably be the only metal band). I think the problem comes from metal fans approaching alternative metal or metalcore bands from their limited scope of metal they listen to, and a general ingnorance in regards to alternative and hardocre punk, so they think that because the bands don't sound like their idea of metal, they can't be metal influenced. As someone who listens to a lot of hardcore and alternative as well as metal, the metal influence is obvious.

I'll give you Primus and Tool, though I don't really know Primus well enough to rate their metal influence. Tool is one of my all time favorite bands, but they never really struck me as particularly metal. However, some of their songs are still heavily influenced by metal, and they do cite some metal bands as influence. While they are more based in alterantive and prog than metal, they definately aren't a straight alternative or prog band.

Of course Faith No More's members liked punk, they were an 80's alternative band, they all liked punk. What seperated them from the rest is that they also took influence from metal. Alternative metal was born out of funk metal where funk rock bands started incorpating influence from heavy metal, being some of the first alternative bands to do so. Just go look at Red Hot Chilli Peppers and the controversity they had with Chad Smith and his taste in metal, and the latter metal influence the bad incorperated. As for Korn, their influence is pretty much entirely metal, including alternative metal, with a few hip-hop/rap rock and other alternative bands as well. Aside from the punk influence in the bands they liked, they really aren't influenced by punk at all. You can deny that they are a metal band, but they are clearly heavily influenced by metal, much more so than Faith No More even though Faith No More has more metal creds (there are plenty of bands more punk and less metal influence than Korn in metal archives, such as Motorhead, Corrosion of Conformity, and The Melvins).

"Whereas some like Pantera etc were clearly metal" Actually, no, they aren't, not if you are going to try define metal to exclude certain other metal bands. They take heavy influence from later hardcore punk, and their melodic and rhythmic structure is heavily blues influenced, so by a conservative defination of metal they would just be a really heavy hard rock band. At the time they were around, many people regarded Pantera as meathead poseurs. Now, I'd say Pantera is definately a metal band, but I'm just illustrating the flaw in this line of thought.

I've never heard Mortiis, but who exactly calls them a metal band? Wikipedia labels them as dark ambient and industrial rock. As for Within Temptation, first pop rock isn't mutually exclusive with metal in the broadest sense of the term, in the narrowest sence Within Temptation definately isn't pop rock, that would be something like P!nk, OneRepublic, or Maroon 5. Within Tempation is a poppy gothic metal band, if you just compare them with other gothic metal bands they don't sound particularly metal, but if you compare them with other gothic metal as well as contrasting them with gothic rock bands, it's obvious how they are a gothic metal band.

Rather, if a metalhead doesn't like a certain band, then it isn't metal even if they are almost entirely based in heavy metal (eg. Disturbed, Avenged Sevenfold, Bullet For My Valentine). From what I've seen that's far more true. If you are referring to this specific site, it specifically says in their FAQ that non-metal bands may be included if they appeal to metalheads.

EDIT: Okay, listened to two songs by Mortiis. The first (Parasite God) was synthpop and obviously not metal, so I figured that wasn't what you were referring to. The second one (Decadent & Desperate) was industrial rock and featured a rhythmically complex riff, so I can see why people might mistake it for metal. The reason he is in metal archives is because he was the bassist for Emperor.

Written by Ganondox on 24.06.2014 at 08:45

I'm not arguing whether or not SOAD is a metal band, that is another discussion, I'm just saying they are clearly alternative metal rather than plain old alterantive rock. Pretty much all alternative metal bands are more based in alternative than heavy metal (Pantera, Machine Head, and White Zombie are all groove metal), but if they weren't heavily metal influenced they wouldn't be alteranative metal, they would be post-hardcore or noise rock or something, or just plain old alternative rock. You seem to be falling for the Metal Archives fallacy, where something is only metal if it's based around "metal riffs", whatever the hell that is supposed to mean, and riffs can only be metal influenced if they already fit the scope of "metal riffs", which doesn't really make any sense when you think about it (the ironic part is that if you were actually going to objectively rate metal by that criteria, black metal wouldn't qualify as metal either, Black Sabbath would probably be the only metal band). I think the problem comes from metal fans approaching alternative metal or metalcore bands from their limited scope of metal they listen to, and a general ingnorance in regards to alternative and hardocre punk, so they think that because the bands don't sound like their idea of metal, they can't be metal influenced. As someone who listens to a lot of hardcore and alternative as well as metal, the metal influence is obvious.

Yes this is a nice way of looking at things, and why I believe metal is much more of a instinct rather than a set of specific rules. When you compare the vastness of metal bands the differences and influences range extraordinary, so it therefore strikes me as somewhat odd that someone would try to refute the idea of SoaD being metal when I think most people that have a vague sensory understanding of metal from having experience with it would be able to recognise the metal quality of it. It's also why I do think "heaviness" is a legitimate way of factoring the metal constituent. Not because anything heavy is automatically metal, but because there is a certain type of heaviness which is associated with it, and that differs from say hardcore punk. To me, and ostensibly most people, that heaviness and metal quality is easily discernible. I think some people just want to fallaciously analyse the metal out of bands like that to fit a certain view.

Regarding the idea of biases deadone has said on a number of occasions (or at least alluded to the idea through mockery) that a lot of modern bands really aren't very much metal because of how little they have in common with the 80s and early 90s lot. In terms of SoaD I think he is stuck up on the idea of influence and public perception at the time.

Quote:
As for metal riffs etc, it all depends on whether you define the genre as a set of audio stylistic elements coupled with visual aesthetics or whether it's some sort of vague cultural thing.

Anyone with a real sense of metal would never define a band based on their visual image or initial cultural standing i.e. the fact that at a single point in time they were misrepresented by the media as a nu metal band. Freezing a band in time in such a manner is an incredibly clumsy way to define a band's current standing, especially when so many shadows have been cast on that original interpretation. It's been pretty much established here that the current culture, some 15 years later, clearly considers them part of the metal, and alternative metal, bracket of history. That's the great thing about time: It allows people to educate themselves with a variety of points of reference, and SoaD are a band that are defined differently now than they were back when they first appeared.

Written by deadone on 25.06.2014 at 02:11

I do think it's a case of metal simply absorbing other genres regardless of how metal they are.

While extreme metal has always taken heavily influence from hardcore punk and genres like metalcore continues to take fresh influence from hardcore, if you actually follow the hardcore scene instead of just the metal scene and contrast old hardcore with old metal and new hardcore, it's clear hardcore is becoming more metallic rather than the opposite. Again, if you only listen to metal and modern non-metal bands which are influenced by metal it's easy to get to the conclusion modern metal is just influenced by these other genres, but they are just as influenced by metal as modern metal is by them. Ironically enough, many genres which originally had next to no metal influence, such as industrial rock and symphonic rock, have absorbed softened versions of their metal counterparts that have little in common with the genres roots. Only if you insist every metal influenced band is metal would your claim be true, but you aren't.

Quote:

Does Metal influenced make a band metal though? I'm pretty sure I hear bits of metal influence in Muse but they're not a Metal band.

Depends on how much metal influence they take, and what aspects taken from metal define metal. I don't listen to enough Faith No More to know if they could really be called a metal band, but what I've heard is definately alternative metal.

Quote:

As for metal riffs etc, it all depends on whether you define the genre as a set of audio stylistic elements coupled with visual aesthetics or whether it's some sort of vague cultural thing.

A music genre is defined soley by it's musical characteristics. What exactly those characterists are is debatable, but it's the sound, not the image, which make something metal.

Quote:

Again do influence make a band metal. Korn featured far less metal bits than CoC, Motorhead (dunno about Melvins).

The first two ablums had some groove metal bits but there was a lot of wierd FNM stuff and alternative hard rock stuff happening as well.

Again, depends on what characteristcs you consider essential to metal. I think Korn sounds more metal than Faith No More, in the very least, but for some reason Faith No More is in Metal Archives. Korn has reminds me more of Black Sabbath than Motorhead those. Oh, and Eyehategod is another hardcore based band in metal archives, but they are more metallic than Korn. Also, by alternative hard rock do you mean grunge, or are you just trying to deny certain alternative metal elements are related to metal?

Quote:

Maybe extreme alternative is a more accurate descriptor.

It's a completely accurate descriptor, only it's not a real genre. The closest thing would probably be noise rock, and while Korn has some similarities to noise rock, I'd say they have more in common with metal. Many alternative metal bands came out of noise rock, including White Zombie, but Korn is not one of them. The heavier end of grunge could also be considered extreme alternative, Soundgarden and Nirvana have some pretty heavy songs, but grunge is partially metal based.

Quote:

And in the end just like Metal emerged out of rock, it is completely possible for non-metal genres to emerge out of metal.

Except metal is rock, at least from the way I view rock. If alternative and prog still fit under the scope of rock, then metal should to, it's more closely tied in with rock than either of those two scenes. Of course metal is distinct from psychedelic rock and blues rock, so it can be argued that some music that came from metal is no longer metal, but I think that would most apply to some forms of extreme metal eg. techdeath.

Quote:

Pantera were definitely metal in my neck of the woods in 1992-96!

I wasn't around then, so I have nothing to say, I just heard that Pantera wasn't considered metal when they started being groove by some true metalheads, but I forgot where I heard it from. Anyway, an argument could definitely be constructed that Pantera isn't metal, however it would be absurd (though only as absurd as the arguments that certain metalcore bands aren't metal). Honestly "Walk" sounds less metal than some nu metal songs.

Quote:

Totally agree. I think it goes both ways.

True, though I don't think it goes nearly as much in the direction you are saying or else more people would be insisting the Beatles (aside from Helter Skelter) or something are metal, more than just the occasional person claiming Nirvana is metal. I guess it really depends on if you have more liberal or conservative view of the scope of metal.

Quote:

One reason why I think they're twats. In the past they wouldn't even feature the clearly metal Soulfly or even some grind bands I submitted.

Admittedly the only song I've heard by Soulfly is Jumpdafuck up, which is pretty shitty nu metal, but you're probably right, I heard they got better. Sepultura is one of the few groove metal bands I like, because of their inclusion of latin instrumentation and stuff. I see where they are coming with grindcore, it's essentially death punk, but they claim it's not metal at all, where if that was true it wouldn't be grind, it would be powerviolence. Yes, only one reason why they are twats, another is because if this conversation where happening on their forums, the mods would insult everyone and say they don't know anything about metal without making an actual argument, and then lock the thread.

On a note relating to the main question, SOAD could be explained as middle eastern progressive metal as interpretted through a hardcore punk ethos, the end result being neither progressive metal nor hardcore punk and thus alternative metal.

Written by deadone on 26.06.2014 at 02:46


This happened in the 1980s even with older punk/hardcore bands such as The Exploited, Discharge, GBH etc.

Yeah, hardcore has been taking metal influence pretty much sense thrash became a thing, even before with bands like Bad Brains. It's just that it wasn't until the 90s, I think, where the metal influenced hardcore bands overtook the non-metal influenced bands in the general hardcore scene

.

Quote:

I listen to the 4 Patton era albums regularly and it's mostly alternative rock + some metal + some lounge + some country.

Sounds about right from what I've heard from. Anyway, if an alternative rock band plays enough metal to be able to be identified as being clearly metal at times, then they are alternative metal, at least on those songs.

Quote:

Interesting.

Bands like Korn, SAOD, FNM etc don't share many musical characteristics with heavy metal in terms of riff structure, drumming style, vocal styles, utilisation or prominence of lead guitars etc etc.


FNM occassionally played a Thrashy riff but the other two's only connection with metal was heavy distorted guitars.

Most nu metal riffs sound more like metal riffs, especially groove and thrash riffs, than other rock genre, just simplied and utilizing hip-hop rhythms. The hip hop rhytms also explains the drums. The drumming in speed metal originated in punk, just usually with less syncopation and more fills, so I don't see that as a problem. Of course that only explains nu metal, but many of the riffs in System and FNM are clearly metal based as well, if going from Black Sabbath to speed to thrash to groove still falls in the realm of metal, then SOAD's riffs still fall in metal as well. Evolution doesn't stop because you got out of highschool. As for vocal style, metal has a range of vocal styles, and at times Serj clearly does take from metal vocally with his operatic vocals, though I think most his screaming is more hardcore influenced. Again, not as familiar with Faith No More, but Mike Patton's vocals seem to be based in funk rock, but with avant-garde metal influence. SOAD also utilizes lead guitars in a metal manner at times, though often a sitar or other acoustic instrument fills that role. Some of these are more of song strucuture thing, and alternative metal is sorta defined by taking metal instrumentation into song structures that aren't traditionally metal. Regarding heavily distorted guitars, some forms of heavy distortion are characteristic to metal, such as the ones used by these bands, others are not, like those used by early hardcore bands and noise rock. Dinosaur Jr. is an example of a melodic, but still extremely distorted, noise rock band whose guitar tone clearly isn't metallic, though they do take influence from heavy metal, especially in their solos. J. Mascis even drums for a couple doom metal bands. SOAD and Korn have far more metal influence than just heavily distorted guitars, even if the distortion is metal based.

Quote:

There's also image elements such as lyrical themes, band logos and imagery and even the way they dress.

I disagree. When defining a genre, the only of those that counts is lyrics, as it's actually in the music, though it's still the most superficial element of a genre and mainly just defines things like comedy or christain rock. The rest are just scene elements, not genre elements.

Quote:

Key point of difference here - I view metal as a standalone genre since 1980s.

Also Tech Death has all the elements of a major metal subgenre (Death Metal) which is far more than what FNM Korn, SOAD, have to the whole of metal.

Do you also view alternative and prog as standalone genres, or are you just biased towards metal? Anyway, techdeath different from death metal in that it's composistion is influenced by avant-garde, jazz, and classical together nearly as much as it's based in death metal, while death metal exagerates the treats of thrash which diverged from speed metal such as chromatism, low harsh vocals as opposed to high pitched clean ones, tempo changes, downtuned riffs, palm muting, d-beat influenced drumming, ect. Even speed metal is divergent, while speed metal is quite similar to traditional heavy metal, it has takes many aspects from punk as well, notably it's speed. Really techdeath does not have much in common with traditional heavy metal at all other than being heavy and riff based, which is also true for nu metal. Yes, traditional heavy metal and techdeath both use solos while nu metal doesn't, but so did all the non-punk rock bands in 70's, rock in general uses way less solos now then it used to, most black metal bands reject solos as well.

Quote:

I was in high school back then and they were definitely considered a metal band in my neck of the wood.

Okay, though I doubt the "true metalheads" who rejected Pantera were highschoolers. Afterall, it's mainly highschools and middleschoolers who call nu metal metal.

Quote:

I view it from a musical stylistic perspective.

Quote:

And I'm not sledging those bands for not being metal. As stated I listen to FNM at least once a month! The "liberal" perspective makes the term metal meaningless as anything remotely "heavy" gets dumped into it.

Never said you did, just referring to the metal community as a whole. Anyway, the liberal perspective only calls all heavy music metal as much as the conversative perspective calls all speed metal bands punk rock poseurs. While modern dubstep (brostep) is infact metal influenced, no one is calling it metal as it obviously isn't anywhere close to metal, while most the non-metal rock bands being called metal do take some influence metal, not just hard rock or punk. The other thing is with a liberal perspective you notice the elitists more, and with a conservative perspective you notice the poseurs more.

Quote:

Soulfly has been pure Groove/Thrash for several albums now.

I really should go listen to some of their new songs ans see what I think of it.

Quote:

As for grindcore, there's plenty of grindcore on Metal Archives. The mods are just picky. And I was insulted too when I asked why they were rejected. This was about 2005-06.

Yeah, that's why they suck. They are free to set their own standards, but they should be more consistent, and if you can't do they that, they could in the very least try not to be complete assholes about it.

Written by deadone on 26.06.2014 at 08:42

I'm not informed enough to make an opinion. Where's Uldreth (resident hardcore expert) when you need him!

Yeah, maybe we should consult with him, I get most my hardcore via my brother, whose a big fan of punk over metal and it's the old stuff like Minor Threat and Dead Kennedies as well as some newer stuff that continues from the punk roots mixed with other stuff like Ovlov. From what I've heard 90's and latter hardcore is way more metal influenced than 80's stuff aside from the scenes that lead up to grindcore and the like, but maybe it's just because the 80's stuff I listen to is less metal influenced and the 90's stuff I get from metalheads.

Quote:

FNM's "metalness" has been discussed a lot over the years. Alternative rock suits them fair better than metal a lot of the time.

They certainly don't just sound like another alternative rock band, much more metal than other alternative bands at the time, but then again they are also much more anything, from what I've heard the band is extremely sporadic. If you are looking at how metal they are from a metal standpoint, they aren't very metal, but from an alternative standpoint, they are pretty metal.

Quote:

To me they sound like hardcore mosh riffs circa 1985 albeit chunkier. Though I suspect the influence is Pantera, White Zombie, Machine Head and Metallica's Black album and not 1980s hardcore.

Might be about right, groove metal bands did take heavily from late 80's hardcore, though to me the riffs clearly sound more metal than punk, even if they are similar to some ones found in hardcore.

Quote:

I would never regard Serj's higher voices as particularly metal. He has a very unique delivery aspect. His heavier vocals sound more hardcore shout .

While it's quite different from power metal vocals, it's operatic in nature, and if thrash vocals are metal, then so are Serj's. Already said that about the shout, though plenty of metal bands use hardcore based shouts, like Slayer and Pantera.

Quote:

The music doesn't sound metal in SOAD - it's bouncy, very stop-start in nature and lots of emphasis on non-metal melodies. Drumming can be very funky at times, even in heavy songs ala Soil.

Only sounds as bouncy and stop-start in comparison to thrash as thrash is to speed metal. Metal has a range of melodies, there is a huge melodic divergence between thrash metal and power metal, taking influence from middle eastern music, funk, and other genres doesn't make it stop being metal.

Quote:

Some of the riffs are metal sounding but others seem punky or grungy or alternative rock. There's even reggae-like riffs e.g. P.L.U.C.K. They also use wierd riffs that come across very Nu-metal (e.g verse for Prison Song which incidentally comes across very Nu-Metal) and pinch harmonics (which a lot of Nu-Metal bands over used more than other genres - it was also overused in Nu-metal's precursor Groove Metal).

SOAD blends a wide range of influences. Definately a considerable influence from hardcore and alternative rock, but also from metal as well. Grungey sounds a bit redundant as it's mix of metal, punk, and alternative already. The fact is the metal is prominent. In P.L.U.C.K one of the riffs sounds a little like a skank beat, but it's not really a reggae riff, most the riffs in the song sound based in either metal or hardcore. While listening to Toxicity I did notice Prison Song had more of a nu metal sound than their other songs, that is true.

Quote:

In fact System of a Down comes remind me of a modern Dead Kennedies at times but that's just a personal opinion.

I see why you would say that, I'm pretty sure they take influence from that band, I know Serj covered Holiday in Cambodia with the Foo Fighters. Both are pretty zany, but Dead Kennedies has got that punk rock swagger, while SOAD has more metal oriented sound. Comparing a "random" song by each band, the difference is pretty clear. They personally remind a bit of They Might Be Giants, if they were the angry teenage version.

Quote:

I personally thought Dinosaur Jr used a very metal guitar sound on Where You Been. It was what made me listen to them in the first place.

Eh, not really hearing it, hear more influence in a few of the riffs and lead lines, still definately alt rock as opposed to alt metal. Anyway, early hardcore has very different distorted guitar tone then metal does with the heavy use of feedback and more treble.

Quote:


They're important elements nonethless. Very often they're badges of belonging to a certain genre.

A great example is the crisp Thrash logos and unreadable Death Metal logos. You know what you're getting. They also talk about musical and overall values of the band.

Indeed part of the reason the metalcore guys didn't get accepted as metal by many was the presence of punk/hardcore imagery and absence of traditional long hairs.

I stand by what I said, it's a scene thing, not a genre thing. Yes, you can often tell a metal band's genre by looking at their logo, black metal bands are all white and squiggly, power's is nice and polished, ect. but if you were to change all of that the music would still sound exactly the same, and is thus the same genre.

Quote:

Depends on the band. Something like Psycroptic is very much in the realms of DM whereas Pestlence and Atheist both embraced heavy elements of jazz at times in their career.

Listening to a Psycroptic song and hearing some middle eastern sounding melodies, not sure why SOAD is non-metal for doing this but Psycroptic is not. Pretty sure most metal isn't in that mode, if it even sticks to a mode. It's also as start stopping as SOAD and has got these clanging metal percussion at times, as it made with metal, not that it's from metal. It didn't even have a guitar solo. As I said before, death metal is already significantly different from traditional heavy metal. I see absolutely no reason why this should be considered metal while SOAD isn't.

Quote:

As for alternative and prog as standalone genres - no. I think they can be prog metal or prog rock and the same with alternative.

Calling prog metal and prog rock different genres, but not prog and rock is incredibly arbitrary. Metal sounds more like rock than prog does to me, explain to me why this prog metal song isn't rock, but this prog rock song is. Those are two of the most well known prog songs as well. As for alternative rock, some of it has a pretty conventional rock sound, but other is really far out. Don't see any reason why shoegaze should be lumped with rock, but not tr

Prog implies IMO willingness to change and operate outside of established musical structures.

Alternative is hard to define but seems to be "doesn't fit anywhere else" and doesn't sound like older stuff.

Quote:


Not sure what you mean by Speed Metal? The label was used in quite a scattered manner in the 1980s and the best I can determine is that it implies "faster" Heavy Metal bands ala Gravedigger, early Helloween etc.

An article of mine on Speed Metal - yeah it's a shameless plug: http://metalstorm.net/pub/article.php?article_id=1395

In this context I was essentially using it as synonym for the NWOFBHM, only focusing on the sound rather then the scene. Well read the article is a bit, how exactly do you write articles? I might be interested in writing a few in the future.

Quote:

As stated Tech Death is rooted in Death Metal which is itself an offshoot of Thrash which itself comes from NWOBHM etc.

And nu metal is rooted in groove which is an offshoot of thrash as well. I'd personally say nu metal is ambiguously metal, stuff like Slipknot is clearly metal while Linkin Park isn't, but metalcore is definitely metal.

Quote:

As for Black Metal, the Norwegian stuff seemed to exist outside the overall metal community in the 1990s. It wasn't until the 21st century it gained a modicum of acceptability within the overall metal community.

Even in 2005-06 when I was heavily involved in the local metal community (label, radio show, working at gigs), true Black Metallers were viewed as outsiders and wierdos by many metalheads.

Well now there are being going around saying black metal is the truest form of metal. :eyeroll: Well if you reject black metal you are much more consistent than the guys at metal archives, though I still think you are slightly biased towards 80's metal.

Quote:

Okay, though I doubt the "true metalheads" who rejected Pantera were highschoolers. Afterall, it's mainly highschools and middleschoolers who call nu metal metal.

Interestingly enough I never heard the old school Death/Thrash guys I met in my 20s deny Pantera being a Metal band. They did regard them as posers but then they also regarded Metallica, In Flames, Children of Bodom etc etc as posers too.

By old school I mean into the DM scene when it started about 1989 (couple of them had awesome CD collections).

Maybe it was just that they were called poseurs, not false metal, I forget. Sounds like the same thing to me. I know some people insist Metallica and In Flames haven't been metal since X album, not sure about Children of Bodom.

Quote:

Depends on what part of the metal community you're talking about. To something like the Metal Hammer crowd, Korn and Linkin Park's dub step albums are still metal.

Most of the old school Thrash/Death guys I used to know never even acknowledged Nu-metal as a form of Metal. And there's plenty of people who still deny Metalcore being metal, even when talking about bands that sound like ATG/In Flames clones.

There's a plethora of opinions and they do tend to depend on scenes.

I do think there's maybe some consolidation of opinions due to the internet though.

I do like Korn's album, though it isn't really metal at all, still much better than pure dubstep. As for Linkin Park, I think their latest album is the most metallic thing they've ever released, don't know of anything by them which could be called dubstep. From what I've seen, far more people deny that even Slipknot is metal than accept Linkin Park as being metal, same with Metalcore. Then again, the only metalhead I know IRL is my "ex"/friend, and she's far more elitist than I am, the rest I just see on the internet.

Avant-garde synthpop.

Agree with most of this, will comment on specific things.

Written by deadone on 27.06.2014 at 03:04

Those chunky riffs came to metal via Crossover.

I think they also came to hardcore via crossover, are you sure we are talking about the same thing?

Quote:

Adding middle eastern, funk, jazz etc whatever influences doesn't stop a band being metal if they're still mainly metal. SOAD come across as quite non-metal a lot of the time and very metal at others (and I sat through their first two albums last night whilst doing a major budget projection).

And stop start, heavy-clean contrasts are generally a Nu-metal thing that was originally started by 1990s bands ala Pantera, Machine Head and Fear Factory.

Even if SOAD isn't metal enough to be classified as true metal, they are metal enough to be classified as alternative metal, at least for most their songs. They really are a hard band to classify beyond that. Not sure exactly what you mean by stop start, thought you were referring to tempo changes and the like, but the heavy-clean contrast is mainly a characteristic of alternative rock, not sure where it originated, but Dinosaur Jr. inspired the Pixies to use it, which inspired Nirvana and most the other grunge bands, which inspired later alternative rock.

Quote:

I'd say it's a genre thing. I'd say it's not as important as the musical elements (not all bands indulge in the visual aesthetics).

I still disagree, not really anything else to say in these regards.

Quote:

Coz Psycroptic are a Death Metal band using mainly DM musical components and SOAD is a jack of all trades encompassing the whole spectrum of non-mainstream music.
And DM is one of the key subgenres of metal even if it's long past evolved from 1970s heavy metal.

Yeah, but if hypothetically things were divided differently death metal might not be considered a subgenre of metal.

Quote:

NWOBHM does not equal speed metal. After all some NWOBHM bands were actually quite slow (Witchfinder General) while others were closer to hard rock of the day.

Writing articles - think about them in the shower and if the ideas stick write them down. Listen to lots of music you want to write about.


Then rewrite and rewrite. Though reviews are usually single takes done whilst listening to an album.

Well of course I wasn't referring to bands like Witchfinder General, just the ones associated with speed metal, the ones which took punk influence and played faster, paving the way for thrash and power metal. Pretty much what is described in that article.

I meant how to technically do it on this site, but thanks for the advice, I'll keep that in mind for the future.

Quote:

Agree with this. Some metalcore does sit more closely to hardcore (e.g. Vision of Disorder) but a lot of the modern stuff is often closer to metal.

Forgot to specify I was referring to the majority of modern metalcore, which is the stuff people bitch about. Ironically metallic hardcore seems to be more accepted among metalheads then the later stuff which is actually based in metal.

Written by M C Vice on 27.06.2014 at 07:05

Avant-garde synthpop.

case closed