Written by Italics on 24.06.2009 at 05:20

I define "true metal" as listening to whatever the hell you want to without having someone else tell you the bands you listen to "aren't metal."

Seriously... it's one thing to criticize a band for making poor music... another thing to criticize their fans and call their music "fake."

Agreed. But that is what I would call the definition of a "true metalhead" while "true metal" is more like a band that stays true to it's sound because of being "true metalheads".
Not giving a shit about what others define your music as (being a tr00 metalhead) + not changing the way you like to play your music (not selling out) = true metal (That's basic true metal in my opinion)
Nevermore is a very true metal band in this definition and so is Manowar (feel free to disagree on this one) and Hammerfall.

Written by Nimlot on 24.06.2009 at 08:03

Written by Italics on 24.06.2009 at 05:20

I define "true metal" as listening to whatever the hell you want to without having someone else tell you the bands you listen to "aren't metal."

Seriously... it's one thing to criticize a band for making poor music... another thing to criticize their fans and call their music "fake."

Agreed. But that is what I would call the definition of a "true metalhead" while "true metal" is more like a band that stays true to it's sound because of being "true metalheads".
Not giving a shit about what others define your music as (being a tr00 metalhead) + not changing the way you like to play your music (not selling out) = true metal (That's basic true metal in my opinion)
Nevermore is a very true metal band in this definition and so is Manowar (feel free to disagree on this one) and Hammerfall.

True, but sometimes people falsely accuse a band of "selling out" just because that band starts playing more catchy and assessable music. Has it occurred to anyone that maybe some bands WANT to play more catchy music?

True metal to me is metal played with a true devotion to the music, either by staying true to the roots and trying to develop new material with a classic sound or by trying to expand metal's borders without corrupting it's metallic essence. In this way, not all good metal is true, and not all true metal is good. I make a clear distinction between the two. "Artistic quality" or whatever you want to call it has very little to do with the trueness of the music, but only with the quality. The sincere devotion to metal as a music style at the core of the music is what counts for me.

I accuse a band of selling out at the point where all I can hear is a devotion to money and popularity. A lot of the underground shitty darkthrone clones also fail since their devotion is centered on being true and getting kvlt cred rather than on adding something of quality to the metal genre.

The problem with that definition is that there's no "metallic essence" that can be pin-pointed. "Metal" is a very arbitrary gray zone that consists of several styles and bands that have little, if anything, to do with eachother. You can point out a group of common characteristics that many bands share in a variety of combinations, but it's quite possible
to have two bands who don't share any of the same characteristics with eachother. It's the same with all music genres, and all categories to begin with.

Written by IronAngel on 06.07.2009 at 15:22

The problem with that definition is that there's no "metallic essence" that can be pin-pointed. "Metal" is a very arbitrary gray zone that consists of several styles and bands that have little, if anything, to do with eachother. You can point out a group of common characteristics that many bands share in a variety of combinations, but it's quite possible
to have two bands who don't share any of the same characteristics with eachother. It's the same with all music genres, and all categories to begin with.

metallic essence in the meaning that I referred to it is the point when the music still can be reasonably seen as metal and doesn't cross over too much into non-metal territory. What I was describing was a sense of genuine devotion to metal as a music style, and when I said metallic essence I was pretty much saying that the music still has to be metal at it's core and not something else. Experimentation is fine, but if you take it too far you quite often step outside metal territory and wind up with something else.

Experimentation is a part of my vision of true metal as long as you do it with a sense of devotion to furthering metal's development (and not just jumping on trendy bandwagons that come along). I just used the words "metallic essence" to describe the state when you are still playing metal with a true devotion to the genre's development. To me, a metallic essence is nothing more than that. That was the only context in which I used the words "metallic essence".

Mm, that's understandable. But bear with me a while yet:

If your definition of true metal is the kind of music that holds onto the metallic essence, and that means that the band is still playing metal, well... Doesn't that mean that every band that can be labelled "Metal" are also "True Metal" - otherwise they wouldn't be metal at all, but crossing over into other genres? I may start to sound like a broken record, but I haven't been countered on this point yet: if there is true metal, there must also be the opposite, false metal. And if something is false, it's not what it appears to be. Therefore, false metal isn't actually metal. Everything that isn't true metal (but uses the label nonetheless) is obviously false metal, because there can be no compromise between true and false. If everything that isn't true metal is false metal, and false metal isn't metal at all, it follows that true metal is the only metal that is really metal. In other words, all metal is true metal. Does that not make the term "true metal" redundant, if its meaning is identical to that of simply "metal"?

If you don't think a band is really playing metal, wouldn't it be easier, less controversial and more rational to simply say they're not metal, instead of saying they're not true metal?

Written by IronAngel on 07.07.2009 at 18:20

Mm, that's understandable. But bear with me a while yet:

If your definition of true metal is the kind of music that holds onto the metallic essence, and that means that the band is still playing metal, well... Doesn't that mean that every band that can be labelled "Metal" are also "True Metal" - otherwise they wouldn't be metal at all, but crossing over into other genres? I may start to sound like a broken record, but I haven't been countered on this point yet: if there is true metal, there must also be the opposite, false metal. And if something is false, it's not what it appears to be. Therefore, false metal isn't actually metal. Everything that isn't true metal (but uses the label nonetheless) is obviously false metal, because there can be no compromise between true and false. If everything that isn't true metal is false metal, and false metal isn't metal at all, it follows that true metal is the only metal that is really metal. In other words, all metal is true metal. Does that not make the term "true metal" redundant, if its meaning is identical to that of simply "metal"?

If you don't think a band is really playing metal, wouldn't it be easier, less controversial and more rational to simply say they're not metal, instead of saying they're not true metal?

False metal is music played without the devotion to metal as a genre examples of this would be:

Metal with played with a devotion to popularity and money. There are numerous examples of this. Bands where commercialism has corrupted the pursuit to further metal's development. These bands often alienate their older fans for the sake of attracting another, larger crowd or have never had any intention to attract a metal crowd at all but prefer to sell out their music to confused teenagers.

* Metal which is too far removed from it's metal roots to be true metal. This means some really borderline bands which have removed themselves too far from their metallic essence.

* Black metal bands that play with a focus on sounding true and getting kvlt cred by being controversial rather than with a focus to add something of value to the metal scene.

* Death metal bands focusing on gore and controversy rather than on the music itself. Waco Jesus is a good example.

* Bands that are afraid to create their own style of the subgenre they play because they think it will make them sound not true. Many of the black metal bands which are just cloning Darkthrone or Burzum have this problem.

* Some revivalist thrash bands with a focus on being as much true thrash as possible instead of focusing on making quality music. Lich King is an example of this.

* Bands that experiment simply for the sake of experimenting, and sound strange simply for the sake of sounding strange, maybe in an attempt to attract a certain crowd.

Much of my views on true metal has very little to do with any musical criteria, but more on the bands intentions with their music. One band sounding a certain way might be true if they are pursuing their artistic vision in an attempt to further the development of metal, and another band sounding nearly the same might not be if they play that way only to attract some of the first band's crowd.

Again, in this way, not all true bands are good, and not all good bands are true. To me, the two are completely separate from eachother and should not be confused.

Simply, to me, a true metal band would do the following:

* Pursue their own artistic vision within the metal genre.

* Not be afraid to give their music a special and unique touch.

* Play with the general outlook "What do we want to play?" rather than "What do they want to hear?".

* Play with the intention of adding something of value to the metal genre rather than just cash in money from little kids.

* Focus on the music rather than on the other aspects surrounding it. A true band speaks through it's music, and not through controversy or tr00 street cred. Ironically, this disqualifies a lot of black metal and brutal death metal bands from my definition of being true.

* Play music that could reasonably be called metal. Otherwise it is not a true metal band, since it is not a metal band anymore. This is what I meant with "corrupting it's metal essence".

* Explore their own lyrical themes and writing lyrics which are genuinely their own instead of just doing what they feel they have to do to fit into the genre they play.

* Understand that true metal is not about limitations. It is about possibilities and the ability to craft something that sounds genuine (the very definition of true).

* Be either good or bad, depending on the level of their musicianship.

Now, I'm not asking anybody to agree with such an abstract definition, but it's the way I define true metal personally.

While I don't agree with all your ctiteria, I see where you're coming from. However, that still doesn't answer my main beef with the term:

Why call it True Metal, if it's essentially music that is authentically "metal"? As you say, bands who don't meet the standards of True Metal are False Metal, and your main criterion for True Metal is that it must be metal, not something that just resembles metal. Isn't it confusing to talk about True Metal, if it's essentially the same thing as Metal?

Or would you say there are bands who undeniable play metal, and could be called metal bands without any qualms, but they aren't True Metal? If so, I've misunderstood you, but I think that by the very definiton of the word "true", everything that isn't true must be false. "If Y, then X" must be either true or false, it can't be anything in between. I don't see how anything could really be metal, but also be false metal. That's an oxymoron. Therefore, it inevitably follows that all metal is true metal, or it isn't metal at all.

Calling some metal true metal, in the way you define it, is like calling the colour blue, true blue. That implies that there's also false blue, which must be a different colour. So in fact, "false blue" isn't blue at all, and the only blue is "true blue". And thus, the term "true blue" becomes redundant, and we could simply stick with "blue." Just like we could talk about metal and non-metal, instead of true metal.

"True Metal" is a term largely used by Nuclear Blast to promote bands like Hammerfall back in the 1990's

Before them, Manowar (and maybe a few others) used the terms "False Metal" & "True Metal" mainly in mottos in records & t-shirts. At the time it was not used as a term like today we say "I listen to THIS metal or THAT metal".... nobody really was saying "I am listening to True metal" - it was just a Manowar thing.

In the late 1990's Nuclear Blast (with an extensive network of promotional contacts and big budgets to advertise their releases) used the term "True Metal" to promote Hammerfall. Suddenly advertisings with this term were all over the place and fans still have the same confusing discussion today.

Labeling the metal styles was always a kind of tricky sport. IMO "True Metal" the way it is used can not signify musical attributes thus every metalhead would know if the X or the Y band is Metal or not. There are so many other more descriptive labellings (Heavy, Power, Speed, Thrash, Death, Black, Nu etc etc etc) that "True Metal" is not necessary.

Written by IronAngel on 07.07.2009 at 20:25

Why call it True Metal, if it's essentially music that is authentically "metal"? As you say, bands who don't meet the standards of True Metal are False Metal, and your main criterion for True Metal is that it must be metal, not something that just resembles metal. Isn't it confusing to talk about True Metal, if it's essentially the same thing as Metal?

Or would you say there are bands who undeniable play metal, and could be called metal bands without any qualms, but they aren't True Metal? If so, I've misunderstood you, but I think that by the very definiton of the word "true", everything that isn't true must be false. "If Y, then X" must be either true or false, it can't be anything in between. I don't see how anything could really be metal, but also be false metal. That's an oxymoron. Therefore, it inevitably follows that all metal is true metal, or it isn't metal at all.

Calling some metal true metal, in the way you define it, is like calling the colour blue, true blue. That implies that there's also false blue, which must be a different colour. So in fact, "false blue" isn't blue at all, and the only blue is "true blue". And thus, the term "true blue" becomes redundant, and we could simply stick with "blue." Just like we could talk about metal and non-metal, instead of true metal.

As I've said, false metal bands could undeniably be metal too. It doesn't have as much to do with how they're performing their music as why.

Black metal bands that focus only on controversy and cloning Darkthrone for the sake of seeming true, would according to my definition not be true metal, but still be very much metal.

True metal is basically metal played with a genuine devotion to metal as a music style. Basically, metal with it's main focus on the music and not on making money/creating controversy/looking as true as possible or whatever really. Metal can be played with another focus, and still musically be metal.

Examples of false metal is IMO:

* Waco Jesus - A brutal death metal band focusing only on creating controversy, but they are still undeniably metal. This is not the only band of the type but serves as an example.

* The countless kvlt kiddie black metal bands focusing on creating controversy to get kvlt street cred. The LLN is a clear example of this. If you read their little magazine ("The Black Plague: First Chapter And Maybe Last One", I have a pdf of it if you're interested) you'll see why. The LLN sometimes managed to make good metal though, even if I personally don't consider it true.

* Thrash bands that focus more on seeming as thrashy as possible than on making quality metal. Examples of this are Lich King and Immaculate, both clearly metal bands.

* Bands that have proven that the only focus they have left is making money and making a profit off of confused teenagers. Examples of this would be bands like the massively trendjumping modern Metallica and Trivium with their ridiculous claim of being the new Metallica to sell more records to kids. This list can go on with the likes of Dimmu Borgir and In Flames, which can both reasonably be called metal bands.

* Bands who's only purpose is to poke fun at or corrupt the genre they play. This means bands like Anal Cunt, Iwrestledabearonce, Horde and a shitload of parody bands.

There are other examples of false metal which is still undeniably metal as well. Generally, ture metal is about the metal music, and if a band puts something else before the metal, such as money-making, creating controversy or getting tr00 street cred, then they are false. It doesn't have anything to do with how good they are, as long as the "metallic essence" or devotion to the metal music is put first and foremost.

I think it's a poor term, though. How can something be false metal, but still be metal? It's an oxymoron. False is something that is not genuine, not true, inconsistent with the facts.

Anything that isn't true must be false. This is an aprioric truth that's contained in the very definition of the two words. Therefore, all metal that isn't true is false. But "false metal" cannot be metal: it wouldn't be false if it was. False blue isn't blue, it's another colour. A false solution to a mathematical problem isn't a solution at all, because the problem is incorrectly solved. False metal isn't genuinely metal (by definition of "false), because it wouldn't be ingenuine if it was metal.

That's my main gripe with the silly term. You can't just make up new definitions for words on whim.

Written by IronAngel on 08.07.2009 at 21:13

I think it's a poor term, though. How can something be false metal, but still be metal? It's an oxymoron. False is something that is not genuine, not true, inconsistent with the facts.

Anything that isn't true must be false. This is an aprioric truth that's contained in the very definition of the two words. Therefore, all metal that isn't true is false. But "false metal" cannot be metal: it wouldn't be false if it was. False blue isn't blue, it's another colour. A false solution to a mathematical problem isn't a solution at all, because the problem is incorrectly solved. False metal isn't genuinely metal (by definition of "false), because it wouldn't be ingenuine if it was metal.

That's my main gripe with the silly term. You can't just make up new definitions for words on whim.

It may be poorly worded, but I still think it can be a fitting description.

Consider it like this:

True metal is metal which is metal in both body and spirit. False metal can be metal in bofdy, but not in spirit, thus making it false. It poses as metal and by all means is metal in body, but since it is something else in spirit, it cannot be truely metal, at the same time as it is metal in shape and form.

Perhaps true metal should rather be described as "metal in it's complete form" and false metal should be described as "metal in it's incomplete form", but this doesn't have the same ring to it as true and false. That is, at least according to my definition.

In different situations different words can mean different things in different situations. This is one of those situations where the words true and false have been given a new and widely accepted (at least in the metal scene) meaning based on the fact that they are referring to metal. Language is a versatile thing, and the meanings of words can change depending on the situation. This is what has happened here, even if the definitions regarding the meaning of these words when referring to metal is very much tied to one's personal opinions.

You think it's a silly term. I think it's useful on some occations because it can help you understand what lies behind the music, but that it is not synonymous with quality. Other people think that trueness is the same as quality. Some people think that trueness is the same as following the ideals of metal. People will never think the same about it, and that doesn't matter. In fact, that's a good thing, because it shows that metal hasn't completely imbued a total herd-mentality on it's listeners causing everyone to think the same way.

My point is that the meaning of the words true and false have become different from their original meanings when you refer to metal, just like the way the word love is different when you're referring to your mother compared to when you're referring to your girlfriend.

Here is one aspect that is more true than anything else:

Written by Metalhead2 on 23.06.2009 at 17:00

I define true metal as metal with artistic quality. That includes some heavyspeed, early Black and early Death metal. Not because of the age, but because modern stuff sucks. Come on, what do we have now? Cannibal Corpse, Cradle of Filth, In Flames? Laughing my ass off.

whilst i agree mostly with you,
the modern stuff dosn't suck,
sure Cradle of filth, cannibal corpse and all that mainstream shit sucks.

but even to this day, there are true black metal bands,
but seeing as we are in the age of falsity, its nearly impossible to find good new stuff in stores,
most stores won't sell it, it dosn't sell well. alll because those new false bands.

To be honest, that's most just a defense mechanism for people who disagree with the minority. It's easy to feel better about yourself when you pretend you're part of the chosen few with better understanding. We've witnessed that time and again in subcultures and religious sects worldwide.

Thrash, nu, death, black, expirimental, power,... its all metal, but some is not considered "heavy" enough, alternative/nu, by metalhead assholes. sstill its all metal

There is no true Metal... Metal is Metal... But there is false metal (like the 80's glam/hair/power metal)

And what about Manowar?

but about "false" metal...i would say nu metal owns in this...and metalcore...

It's like the definition of obscenity...you know it when you see it.

With metal, you can analyze the music all day, but in the end there are only two kinds of music in the world.

Good music and bad music.

I don't think there is a thing as "True" Metal simply because there is loads of it spanning from different Genres so I think it's a bit unclassable.

'True metal' is metal which is played with heart and devotion to music.

True Metal=True Metal

If it's true that it's metal it's 'True Metal'. Why people place emotional sentiment on the word 'true' baffles me. 'Oh Look at me I listen to the old stuff and was around when it was out therefore it's true metal', what a fucking stupid, prescriptivist, conservative ideology. Now one of my usual antagonists' will reply and we'll get into a long arse debate, joy.

Metalheads who talk about 'true metal' are the most annoying ones

Written by [user id=107773] on 30.01.2011 at 19:45
Now one of my usual antagonists' will reply and we'll get into a long arse debate, joy.

He got stuck in traffic.

You'll have to deal with me instead.

Written by vezzy on 30.01.2011 at 20:19

Written by [user id=107773] on 30.01.2011 at 19:45
Now one of my usual antagonists' will reply and we'll get into a long arse debate, joy.

He got stuck in traffic.

You'll have to deal with me instead.

That was antagonist plural, my friend! You are indeed one of them. ¬¬

Written by [user id=107773] on 30.01.2011 at 20:22
That was antagonist plural, my friend! You are indeed one of them. ¬¬

I mean, the one that was selected to reply got stuck in traffic.

I'm second-in-command.

Now then, you butthurt power metal fanboy, I'll have you know that true metal is rabble rabble rabble.

And then some.

Written by vezzy on 30.01.2011 at 20:24

Written by [user id=107773] on 30.01.2011 at 20:22
That was antagonist plural, my friend! You are indeed one of them. ¬¬

I mean, the one that was selected to reply got stuck in traffic.

I'm second-in-command.

Now then, you butthurt power metal fanboy, I'll have you know that true metal is rabble rabble rabble.

And then some.

Haha, truth hurts doesn't it?

It's good to be TrOO/true, but i think it's better to be inventive and newthinking.
Ofcourse it's possible to be both to some extent, if there is something called True at all. (always question the "truth") I fell that the so called True metal bands like Manowar, Iron Maiden, burzum etc. maybe are afraid to make changes becasue they fear to dissapoint their fans and don't sell records.... thats not very TrOO is it?? Even that or they are not very versatile musicians. Maybe i'm wrong, but i have never seen any members of the bands mentioned above in any sideprojects that is completely different than their main bands or at least require a different sett of skills/approach. Eks: Bruce Dickinson solo material. I think Metallica is a good example of the opposite, they never been afraid to try something new. and now with this Lou Reed thing.. Awsome, i haven't heard it, but what an bold idea right? I don't want to start a debate about how good Metallica's later year albums is. i only say that i think they have alot of balls doing what they do. at least give them that much:)

Written by RockeRoy on 15.09.2011 at 14:08

It's good to be TrOO/true, but i think it's better to be inventive and newthinking.
Ofcourse it's possible to be both to some extent, if there is something called True at all. (always question the "truth") I fell that the so called True metal bands like Manowar, Iron Maiden, burzum etc. maybe are afraid to make changes becasue they fear to dissapoint their fans and don't sell records.... thats not very TrOO is it?? Even that or they are not very versatile musicians. Maybe i'm wrong, but i have never seen any members of the bands mentioned above in any sideprojects that is completely different than their main bands or at least require a different sett of skills/approach. Eks: Bruce Dickinson solo material. I think Metallica is a good example of the opposite, they never been afraid to try something new. and now with this Lou Reed thing.. Awsome, i haven't heard it, but what an bold idea right? I don't want to start a debate about how good Metallica's later year albums is. i only say that i think they have alot of balls doing what they do. at least give them that much:)

Actually I think metallica is the worse example you could pick, I mean yes they tried alot, but they went from Good to totally disgusting. I mean what they produce now is total crap compared to their old stuff. Anyways as for Burzum, I think he experimented alot man, now he's doing classical I mean wtf? and for Maiden, well they never really changed the way they played after the first 2 albums but still they tried alot of different things. I think this Tr00 thing is just bullshit, a band is true to itself not to a genre or to a quota of popularity...

Quote:
Actually I think metallica is the worse example you could pick, I mean yes they tried alot, but they went from Good to totally disgusting. I mean what they produce now is total crap compared to their old stuff. Anyways as for Burzum, I think he experimented alot man, now he's doing classical I mean wtf? and for Maiden, well they never really changed the way they played after the first 2 albums but still they tried alot of different things. I think this Tr00 thing is just bullshit, a band is true to itself not to a genre or to a quota of popularity...

I knew Metallica wasn't the best example because i didn't want to start a debate on old vs. new shit, i think its safe to say that no one on this site thinks new shit is better than the old shit anyway... i think you said it well when you say "compared to THEIR old stuff"... i could have picked a band like Ulver for my example maybe..even though the change here is a little to extreme..
Yeah. i'm aware of this classical record of his, but he is not right in his head and had to much time in prisson to think:) anyway Burzum may have experimented, but his catalouge is no more versatile that any other bands. less i think.
When you said maiden tried alot of different things.. i'm sure, but every "trOO" band does this to some extent from album to album.Iron Maiden has always been close to it's nest, to afraid and maybe unable to step out and fly like the eagles in their songs:)
I agree with you on trOO is just bullshit, but there is these trOOists... and they can be annoying, just as annoying as fanboys.
A band should be trOO to it's self, but in who's eyes?? i think Metallica have been true to them self.. they done what they wanted to do all the time, no matter what their fans think.
When a band start making material they think their fans want to hear or keep baking the same old recipe because the fans would be upset if they changed their sound... thats when the band is not trOO to itself, but trOO to their fans. And then every band consist of multiple musicians, and if a musician get stuck in playing the same shit always, he is not true to himself as a musician. It's seams there is alot of different ways to be trOO, and to be trOO 100% to your fans, band and yourself only a few bands/musicians could say that they are i think.. example Opeth/Akerfeldt... (maybe another bad example because Opeth is the new Metallica in some peoples eyes in here.. mainly in the eyes of the "trOOists" i think.. and i think the reason is becasue of the popularity) Maybe that could be a new Song title "In the eyes of the trOOist"