Maybe some people just like classics, the founders of every movemetn .. I do not dislike some alternative metal .... just some bands doesn't deserve the right of being called metal ... there are other style som any ... for example Tool for it's such a great band ... but there are no metal guys ... I think

Wow this has been an interesting thread. I only stop by here every few months but allow me to throw a nugget of opinion in here. On reason I think alt. metal gets little respect is ( as has been writtenearlier) a good many metal fans, not the least of which the extreme metal fans tend to be a bit too loyal (some might say closeminded) to just one genre of the metal scene. Alt metal tends to have alot of non-metal influences in them. If you look at when this genre started making wvaves many of them grew up in a time and/or places where they got alot more exsposure to a wide array of music styles. I know myself in the mid to late 80's I had friends and family that exposed me to the love of music(all music) but mostly at that time for my age group there was metal and rap and the parents of those kids threw in some country and mo-town and lets not forget funk. It was about this time we went from having basic genres of music ie; country-R&B-rock-folk-metal to having genres within the genres. Hell look at this site there are more genres of metal listed here than there where genres of all music in the 80's. So I think alot of the metal people really look at the harder edged metal like extreme as what true metal is nowadays because it is the least mainstream. Just like in the 80s when it all started to get harder to define metalheads were very anit-hairband. A maiden fan would rather eat shit than go to a Poison concert. Well thats a start as far as my opinion goes feel free to critique it

In some cases... Because many people think that when a metal band use "Tecno-things" or some electronic sound... they thinks that's not tr00 metal.
Fuck off to that people.

I must say I've been very entertained with this thread, especially Bittercold's reply. They just rip a new asshole to the "numetal=alt.metal" crowd. I feel the alternative label is kinda useless because it labels bands that have nothing in common just like the melodic and extreme labels. What about bands that fuse power/folk/black or death/thrash/speed? It doesn't work in a lot of cases since stoner, funeral doom, nu metal, industrial, funk metal have very little in common when you think about it.

I personally like some alternative bands though I must say I am not as exposed to them as other bands in other styles. Funk metal is very cool, weird and inventive and I look forward to any recommendations of bands I have not heard of. I know almost nothing of Industrial. I have heard NIN and thought they were passable. I do like Rammstein from my early days of listening to rock/hard rock/numetal. I am not a fan of stoner/sludge/groove rock and metal. It's just sounds kinda dry to me, though that may be the point. I do like DOWN and some Pantera, if that counts for anything.

If you could recommend me any bands in these styles that can help me broaden my horizons.

By the way, Bittercold: If you think this board is bad, you should try and check out the Encyclopedia metallum forums. Chock full of pseudo-intellectuals who can tell you why the music you listen to is crap in 500 words or less. Also, why the simmering hate for Manowar?

I have. I don't think this forum is bad - I think some posters need to broaden their horizons some. i'm not so big on hypocrites who claim to be open minded when they demonstrate they are nothing of the sort.

I fall down on my knees and praise Zarquon each and every day that this forum is immeasurably better than that other site you mention - both in terms of reviews and in forums.

Part of the reason I am such a bastard on threads like these is I aim to keep the discussion from degenerating into something like you might read at ME or Blabbermouth.

As for recommendations, I'm not sure where to go with you. Based on your favorite bands, I don't think too many of the alternative bands I would recommend would fit the mold. Neurosis, Clutch (more rock than metal), Jesu, Godflesh, and High on Fire would be my current "top five" recommendations...

Frankly, as I said, based off a quick glance at your favorites, I'm not sure they'll float your boat. Give them the good old college try and even if you don't connect with their music, you'll get my respect for the effort.

As for Manowar - they are too much a caracterture of everything i consider bad in metal and metalheads. shit like "blow your speakers" and "wimps and posers leave the hall" is way too, uh, well, ridiculous for me. At least Abbath and Horgh of Immortal are tongue-in-cheek about their photos and image.

Hehe. I always saw Immortal and Manowar interchangeably, as in, if Manowar would have been Norwegian, they'd be Immortal and vice versa. I've heard good things about Isis and Kyuss, even if you didn't mention them. I will check out those bands though, as soon as I get back to college, out of my house and away from this crappy computer.

I thank whatever non-existent deity that I found this website as an alternative for MA.

This forum has odd divisions. "Alternative metal" always seemed to me to best refer to bands with large amounts of alternative rock influence or backgrounds in that genre and some vaguely metal characteristics (usually a misnomer, i.e. used by "outsiders" with lax/undeveloped understandings of metal as the seasoned metal fan understands it). I've never heard "alternative metal" to include industrial, "avantgarde" or stoner metal... these all come from very diverse directions and I don't really see what they have in common. "Numetal" I have understood as often synonymous with "alternative metal" as it often has alternative/hard rock influence or background to it.

So I'd say "alternative metal" as I have vaguely explained it is disliked because it is different from the "proper" metal that metalheads generally listen to; it has more to do with the rock scene. Stoner/industrial/etc. metal I think is much more broadly accepted.

I honestly dont know why Alternative metal is hated here. I think the way you describe bands like isis though would be sludge. Last time i heard the genre alternative metal it was related with bands like a perfect circle and other mainstream bands that our kind of on teh fence between nu metal and hard rock.

Once again, alternative metal as a term can be used in two ways:

1. As a blanket term for all bands that transgress traditional metal characteristics. This would include funk metal, some post-punk bands like Killing Joke, industrial metal, grunge, post-grunge, metalcore, New York hardcore, rap-metal, nu-metal, sludge, stoner and many others. This is how we use the term alternative metal on Metal Storm, as a blanket genre distinction along with melodic and extreme metal.

2. As a term used to identify a certain strain of metal bands which appeared in the post-grunge era. Typically, these bands would include very clean production, grunge inspired vocal melodies, often monolithic riffs. Examples - Life Of Agony, Therapy?, Helmet, Deftones, Korn, Stabbing Westward. Many of these bands also qualify as nu-metal, although they tend to be more versatile than your run of the mill nu metal bands.

I find that strange too. I always thought that you have to listen to all kind of metal genres to be a great knower. It's sometimes sad that people have to be so rigid. IMO you can find great metal in many genres!

Written by jupitreas on 25.01.2008 at 23:10

Once again, alternative metal as a term can be used in two ways:

1. As a blanket term for all bands that transgress traditional metal characteristics. This would include funk metal, some post-punk bands like Killing Joke, industrial metal, grunge, post-grunge, metalcore, New York hardcore, rap-metal, nu-metal, sludge, stoner and many others. This is how we use the term alternative metal on Metal Storm, as a blanket genre distinction along with melodic and extreme metal.

Seems kind of unwieldy - was this term invented for the forum? Weird to throw generally recognized metal subgenres like industrial/stoner/metalcore along with things like post-punk and grunge which have little if anything to do with metal. Unless we're taking a *very* liberal mainstream type of metal definition ("loud and heavy"). Does this come from somewhere? Has it been used for a while? Why not throw thrash in there? Or is it more of an arbitrary/pragmatic thing (like "melodic" and "extreme")?

Written by jupitreas on 25.01.2008 at 23:10
2. As a term used to identify a certain strain of metal bands which appeared in the post-grunge era. Typically, these bands would include very clean production, grunge inspired vocal melodies, often monolithic riffs. Examples - Life Of Agony, Therapy?, Helmet, Deftones, Korn, Stabbing Westward. Many of these bands also qualify as nu-metal, although they tend to be more versatile than your run of the mill nu metal bands.

This sounds a bit more familiar - still not the sort of bands I would consider metal but this definition seems more consistent with the popular usage of the term "alternative metal."

Written by totaliteraliter on 26.01.2008 at 21:07

Written by jupitreas on 25.01.2008 at 23:10

Once again, alternative metal as a term can be used in two ways:

1. As a blanket term for all bands that transgress traditional metal characteristics. This would include funk metal, some post-punk bands like Killing Joke, industrial metal, grunge, post-grunge, metalcore, New York hardcore, rap-metal, nu-metal, sludge, stoner and many others. This is how we use the term alternative metal on Metal Storm, as a blanket genre distinction along with melodic and extreme metal.

Seems kind of unwieldy - was this term invented for the forum? Weird to throw generally recognized metal subgenres like industrial/stoner/metalcore along with things like post-punk and grunge which have little if anything to do with metal. Unless we're taking a *very* liberal mainstream type of metal definition ("loud and heavy"). Does this come from somewhere? Has it been used for a while? Why not throw thrash in there? Or is it more of an arbitrary/pragmatic thing (like "melodic" and "extreme")?

Written by jupitreas on 25.01.2008 at 23:10
2. As a term used to identify a certain strain of metal bands which appeared in the post-grunge era. Typically, these bands would include very clean production, grunge inspired vocal melodies, often monolithic riffs. Examples - Life Of Agony, Therapy?, Helmet, Deftones, Korn, Stabbing Westward. Many of these bands also qualify as nu-metal, although they tend to be more versatile than your run of the mill nu metal bands.

This sounds a bit more familiar - still not the sort of bands I would consider metal but this definition seems more consistent with the popular usage of the term "alternative metal."

no, this term was not invented for the forum, this is how the term was used in the late 80s and early 90s; however, after Nirvana's rise in popularity the press wanted to come up with a comfortable definition for new bands that all sounded alike that were popping up and they just reused the alternative metal blanket term. SO in fact it is the second usage that is unweildy, we're just bringing the original usage back!

And this is something that has happened with a lot of genres since industrial metal has almost nothing to do with actual industrial music and gothic metal almost nothing to do with actual goth rock...

I'm not too familiar with alternative metal and what should be classified as alternative or not. I'm also not sure what the line is between grunge and alternative, since alternative is essentially an extension of that. I can give my two cents as to why most people on here don't like alternative.

I, myself, am a power/traditional metal fan and also love a lot of thrash bands and some death metal etc. In general I have a wide taste in music which includes non-metal genres as well such as classical, jazz and blues and when I was younger I did in fact listen to pop, techno and rap and nothing else. So I've been exposed to a lot of different genres, which I've liked at least at some point in my life and at least still have some respect for.

Now I've heard a lot of alternative bands and have quite a few albums by them, but I have found most to be predominantly boring. I had Isis' In The Absence Of Truth and fell asleep after a few songs. Now if you're going to claim it's too complex for me, then that's just not the case because I don't fall asleep when I listen to a piece like Vivaldi's Four Seasons, which is far more technical and complex than alternative metal. As is a lot of progressive metal, which I'm also a huge fan of. Tool has the same impact on me... they as a band shit me in general because they have such a large following and I find them decent at best.

A lot of alternative songs I've heard, such as ones by Queens Of The Stone Age have been complex, but a bit too complex. It essentially detracts from the flow of the song. It's like abstract art... people try new things to come up with something new and unique, while still being creative, but a lot of people won't enjoy an abstract piece of art. For two simple reasons: 1.) It's not the most attractive thing you'll see. 2.) It's creation was meant to be complex and make you think, but to an average observer it just seems simple and stupid.

Such is the case with alternative metal, as far as I see it. I'll admit that I don't give a lot of it much chance, simply because it bores me when I listen to it and I don't want to bother trying to figure out the complexities and subtle meanings of their songs. When you study at university full time, work 20 hours a week as well and have a number of other commitments, you don't have time to sit around appreciating something like alternative music.

Listening to traditional metal or power metal I can appreciate the melodic nature of the songs, which are fairly catchy usually and, in my opinion, empowering. When I'm busy most of the week this definitely serves me well, as it lets me relax and revitalises me.

So, in conclusion, with a busy and fullfilling life I just have no time for a thought-provoking and often depressive genre (don't get me wrong, not saying it's emo - but some songs do have that melancholic nature about them), I just want to have something I can enjoy, bang my head to, maybe even sing along to haha! I think for me it's just a case of having made that transition from pop to metal.

I hope that helps some people get a better idea of why some people might not like alternative metal that much on here. For that matter... I do like quite a few alternative bands. I reckon Kyuss have some fairly good songs, in particular Green Machine. As do Queens Of The Stone Age (if you're going to count them). I'm also a big admirer of Soundgarden, although they're a bit more grunge.

Written by jupitreas on 27.01.2008 at 00:37
SO in fact it is the second usage that is unweildy, we're just bringing the original usage back!

This is kind of absurd - the second one has some tangible boundaries, it describes something specific: heavier alternative rock (more or less).

The first? What use is "alternative metal" if it refers to bands from such a broad spectrum of unrelated backgrounds, scenes, music, etc. - many of them who have nothing to do with each other, or even with metal? I just don't see the practicality of a term that includes Limb Bizkit, Zyklon, Killing Joke, Nirvana, Sleep and/or Cro-Mags (if I am understanding your meaning correctly) as if they all had anything in common at all... other than not fitting in the "melodic" and "extreme" metal categories. Maybe it's meant as more of an "everything else" kind of category rather than something with a clear definition? Because I can somewhat understand that, although even that usage here seems to cast itself more broadly than I would...

yes, its a very broad generalization, with the only common thing being that these are heavy bands not relying on traditional metal elements. But so what? it might be broad but its useful. we have plenty of subgenres of alternative metal as well.

its a metal-centric genre definition which is fair enough for a metal website!

Written by totaliteraliter on 27.01.2008 at 03:27
Maybe it's meant as more of an "everything else" kind of category rather than something with a clear definition?

Yeah, there's nothing wrong with that when it's just to make the forum a little cleaner to organize.

BTW I don't think Zyklon belong in the list you made - they're an extreme metal band, black/death with some industrial elements, at least from what I've heard. And if you take them away, the other bands you mentioned (that I have heard), I think do share a certain foundation somewhere in their music. Are Limp and KJ really that different in their approach? Limp and Nirvana?

Nice post Miker!

Written by Syk on 27.01.2008 at 07:42

And if you take them away, the other bands you mentioned (that I have heard), I think do share a certain foundation somewhere in their music. Are Limp and KJ really that different in their approach? Limp and Nirvana?

Well, Nirvana was influenced by KJ, Korn by Nirvana, Limp Bizkit by Korn... this is the basic 'trail of influence' in this case. With this said, Limp Bizkit has almost nothing to do with Killing Joke, except perhaps for the reliance on stop-go riffs; however, Killing Joke is not the only band that one can attribute this particular way of playing to. Either way, one could definitely discover a causal relationship between these so called alternative metal bands if one looked hard enough.

Written by Syk on 27.01.2008 at 07:42
BTW I don't think Zyklon belong in the list you made - they're an extreme metal band, black/death with some industrial elements, at least from what I've heard.

That's what industrial metal is... metal with industrial elements.

Written by Syk on 27.01.2008 at 07:42
And if you take them away, the other bands you mentioned (that I have heard), I think do share a certain foundation somewhere in their music. Are Limp and KJ really that different in their approach? Limp and Nirvana?

Yes and yes. There is some thread of influence through some of these bands (which is what makes them perhaps more accurately placed outside of the metal genre) - specifically the more alternative rock oriented ones. But once you start throwing in post-metal, hardcore punk, stoner metal and the rest the only thing they really have in common is distorted guitars and a vague heavy/aggressive quality. You have a bunch of bands that come from other scenes/genres where the only commonality is that they are all on occasion considered (mistaken for?) metal. Which is why I say I can understand it as an "everything else" category but not as one with clearly recognizeable common musical elements.

Because there are many purists here... People with very narrow minds, taht are unable to accept that just because it doesn't have solos or it's not tr00 or whatever is not metal.

Written by Syk on 27.01.2008 at 07:42

Nice post Miker!

Thanks... I love how no one ever really responds to my post to argue a point or add on to it. This is like my 10th post with no response!

Written by [user id=28106] on 29.01.2008 at 15:23

Written by Syk on 27.01.2008 at 07:42

Nice post Miker!

Thanks... I love how no one ever really responds to my post to argue a point or add on to it. This is like my 10th post with no response!

You just wait and see how many of your posts are gonna get ignored..

frankly, i wasn't sure how to respond to it. he doesn't like it - fine - but seemed to have a slightly closed mind about it -

" I'll admit that I don't give a lot of it much chance, simply because it bores me when I listen to it and I don't want to bother trying to figure out the complexities and subtle meanings of their songs."

But at least he gave it more of a shot than most, and came in with something to say rather than "nu-metal sucks, d00dz"... so kudos to MetalMiker for putting out that effort, at least.

Written by BitterCOld on 29.01.2008 at 21:19

frankly, i wasn't sure how to respond to it. he doesn't like it - fine - but seemed to have a slightly closed mind about it -

" I'll admit that I don't give a lot of it much chance, simply because it bores me when I listen to it and I don't want to bother trying to figure out the complexities and subtle meanings of their songs."

But at least he gave it more of a shot than most, and came in with something to say rather than "nu-metal sucks, d00dz"... so kudos to MetalMiker for putting out that effort, at least.

That can be taken out of context if quoted on its own without the rest of what I said, but this was in regards to bands like Tool and Isis in particular. Upon listening to them, I understand they're trying to create some sort of feeling or atmosphere to their songs, which has some sort of deeper message than I'm seeing, but all it is to me is some droning noise, or more accurately, a band that needs to use more time than needed to create something with their music. It's not that I'm not a fan of long songs, but I've heard too many songs by alternative bands where the length of the song just seems to make a bad listening experience last longer than it has to. I feel a lot of bands may be creating long songs for the sake of creating long songs, especially since they are alternative and are meant to be doing something different from the 3-minute mainstream songs.

I mean, I find myself thinking about songs like Rainbow's Stargazer, which is a classic, and how the song has this middle-eastern groove and there's a build up throughout the song til it culminates in the last notes of the guitar solo and then has a grand finale with the chaotic sound of the guitar and drums battling with Dio's powerful vocals. That song is epic, but it also creates an amazing atmosphere and imagery that is both exciting and to the point. I don't feel that with alternative bands. Another long song example would come from Rush's 2112, which seriously opens up your imagination.

As I said... traditional versus abstract art. That's how I see alternative music compared to melodic/traditional metal. One is like a beautiful piece of art that I can look and be in awe of, the other is something abstract with many subtleties that I, and many others, may not understand or want to spend time in understanding.

Maybe some people should start explaing why they think alternative metal should be POPULAR instead and what misconceptions people have about it and are missing when they listen to it. I'm interest in knowing at least. I like some bands and songs of the genre as well, mainly because some of the songs have some really cool riffs and are pretty heavy without being too extreme, especially with a band like Kyuss. Also, lyrically they aren't as lame as something like Manowar or Hammerfall hehe

Written by [user id=28106] on 30.01.2008 at 15:52

[Maybe some people should start explaing why they think alternative metal should be POPULAR instead and what misconceptions people have about it and are missing when they listen to it. I'm interest in knowing at least. I like some bands and songs of the genre as well, mainly because some of the songs have some really cool riffs and are pretty heavy without being too extreme, especially with a band like Kyuss. Also, lyrically they aren't as lame as something like Manowar or Hammerfall hehe

I didn't draft the title or initial message, but to me it does not come down to making alternative metal "popular" to begin with.

I don't care if it's popular. If anything, I'm almost happy it's not. There are too many morons in the metal community and I love how just inserting a word like "alternative" keeps a huge chunk of them at arms length.

I, personally, am mostly disgusted by the legion of moron metalheads (many of whom tout themselves as "open minded") who come in here posting about how they don't like 'alternative' metal because they hate LinKorn Slip of the Down or the same tired nu-metal bands without the slightest realization that the boundaries of alternative metal are far more vast than any one genre.

I despise flowery euro power metal like "Rhapsody of Fire of Narnia" or Nightwish and the incredibly lame cementheaded schoolyard politics nonsense like Manocheese ("Wimps and posers leave the hall" - ?!) - but at least I don't bombard their resepective forums ripping on them for their incredible lack of balls (flowermetal) or brains (manocheese) - I respect the genres enough to just stay away.

Frankly, I just want it to be respected and acknowledged as a valid form of expression, even if it falls outside the norms of metal.

At least respected enough that someone who listens to crap like Dragonforce - the musical equivalent of a twinkie - and has absolutely zero grasp on what alternative metal is stays the hell out of this forum rather than making a waste of internet space "I hate SlipKorn" post.

Written by +{Jonas}+ on 28.01.2008 at 21:27

Because there are many purists here... People with very narrow minds, taht are unable to accept that just because it doesn't have solos or it's not tr00 or whatever is not metal.

Man, calling people narrow-minded is so trendy lately.

Out of curiousity. If metalstorm uses the traditional meaning of "alternative metal", do Red Hot Chili Peppers belong to this forum, then?

Written by [user id=1868] on 30.01.2008 at 19:45

Out of curiousity. If metalstorm uses the traditional meaning of "alternative metal", do Red Hot Chili Peppers belong to this forum, then?

As much as I dislike RHCP, their early albums were funk metal, so technically yes. They have been a commercial rock band for the majority career though, so while I wouldnt complain if they were mentioned in the alt metal forum, I'd say they fit more in the rock forum.

i would classify them as alternative rock.

the early albums had a more punk vibe in my eyes, and Flea had a background in the punk scene as a former bassist for FEAR... was even in the movies "Suburbia" an "Dudes."

more recently I think they took the Aerosmith route and now just release ballads.

Written by BitterCOld on 30.01.2008 at 18:34
...too many morons in the metal community...

...disgusted by the legion of moron metalheads...

...incredibly lame cementheaded schoolyard politics nonsense like Manocheese ("Wimps and posers leave the hall" - ?!)...

Written by BitterCOld on 30.01.2008 at 18:34
Frankly, I just want it to be respected and acknowledged as a valid form of expression, even if it falls outside the norms of metal.

: Interesting approach you have there...

Seems to me that you shouldn't be too concerned over what basically amounts to "alternative metal" having a few different definitions. This is one of the more "liberal" metal forums I've been on but even so it is a *metal* forum - you should expect and/or accept that when you start throwing the word "metal" around as haphazardly as appears to happen on this subforum that trouble will arise.

Written by totaliteraliter on 30.01.2008 at 21:13


Seems to me that you shouldn't be too concerned over what basically amounts to "alternative metal" having a few different definitions. This is one of the more "liberal" metal forums I've been on but even so it is a *metal* forum - you should expect and/or accept that when you start throwing the word "metal" around as haphazardly as appears to happen on this subforum that trouble will arise.

Oh yes, let us not blaspheme and sacrilege against holy and sacred metal. If one were to have a time machine and go back in time to play Morbid Angel or Children Of Bodom to the critique who first called Led Zeppelin "heavy metal", I wonder would the critique classify the aforementioned bands all in the same category. Of all forms of music only jazz has levels of purism comparable to the metal community, but I rather think theirs is more justified.

People should practice more iconoclasty, it's refreshing.

Written by totaliteraliter on 30.01.2008 at 21:13

Written by BitterCOld on 30.01.2008 at 18:34
...too many morons in the metal community...

...disgusted by the legion of moron metalheads...

...incredibly lame cementheaded schoolyard politics nonsense like Manocheese ("Wimps and posers leave the hall" - ?!)...

Written by BitterCOld on 30.01.2008 at 18:34
Frankly, I just want it to be respected and acknowledged as a valid form of expression, even if it falls outside the norms of metal.

: Interesting approach you have there...

Seems to me that you shouldn't be too concerned over what basically amounts to "alternative metal" having a few different definitions. This is one of the more "liberal" metal forums I've been on but even so it is a *metal* forum - you should expect and/or accept that when you start throwing the word "metal" around as haphazardly as appears to happen on this subforum that trouble will arise.

I realize this is a *metal* forum - and don't feel that the word "metal" is thrown around too haphazardly. I prefer the gross oversimplificaition to the near anal levels scientific subclassification of metal.

And while this is a *metal* forum (and a liberal one at that, per you), the Mods have gone to great pains to do their best to ensure the quality of discourse is better than on many other forums I have visited - so perhaps because of this I hold our posters to a higher level of expectations than I would posters at , say, Blabbermouth.

I would expect staggering levels of stupidity on other sites, but would hope that Alt-Metal ignorant posters here would come to this thread with an open mind (being that metalheads do so seem to love clamoring on about how open minded they are) and be ready to be informed as opposed to coming in like many have flailing about blindly.