Written by Tod_Engel on 08.10.2007 at 21:02

For me the "true metal" thingy is stupid. What does it stand for ? I don't know, maybe for ultra-tr00, kvlt and satanic black metal or for somebody's narrow taste, who cosiders other metalheads taste lower. I think it has been mentioned that most of people spit on such views, but some metalheads tend to take it seriously. For example some narrow-minded people can't stand electronic elements in metal music. Why can't it be there, can't it make it sound more interesting? Or call clean vocals "emo", it's stupid. I really hate when people don't know anything about music.

I think alot of bands that have clean vocals sound emo. mainly melodeath and metalcore bands. Thats mainly in how they fit with the music, but alot of the time clean vocals in such a setting is a little bit winy. Maybe emo is not a good word to describe this effect, but I am at a loss for other descriptions. does this make me stupid or can I have my own oppinion on how musical ideas fit together? Music is 100% subjective. I agree that the tr00 lable is too critisizing of people's(espesialy young metalheads) music tastes. like someone said above, there is only one true metal band. Manowar.

if manowar is true, a whole shitload of other bands would be true too.

Some metalcore bands that I have listened to partially sound emo, such as Bullet, Killswitch, or UnEarth. I don't have a problem with it but its hard for my to truely classify it because they have that tone to their voice when clean, it just sounds emo (teenager voice), and then they run into screaming. The guitar work sounds pretty metal to me though, soundwise and skillwise.

I hate this all about 'true' and 'fake' metal. Ok, there are some bands that are not metal but everyone classifies them as metal, but I hate people who claim that only heavy/thrash and such genres are 'true' metal. Lots of fans of Black Metal do that, as far as I remember... or at least they used to

True metal? Loud guitars? what about apoctyliptica, is that metal, I do not think so, but many do.

Giutar tone? Mostly distorted, but not always

Bass?

Drums? carry the music, the cadence, not the melody.

Vocals? clean , scream, growl, puke, male , female, transexual, all there.

Themes? fantasy, cultural ( nile ) perversion, love, hate , satanism , christianity, nihilsim, introspection..

Dress? jeans, leather, loin cloth, bearskin, lycra, nude, socks, gowns, silk

Fans, young, old, smart, stupid, rich , poor, white, black, asain, male, female, androygenous..

I guess I an just not sure.

Acoustic Black Metal = Trve Metal!!! LOL

I think Nick Cave is trôô metal. Am I wrong with that?
I really don't care whether something is trôô metal or not, metal is not about truth but about good music and so it should be. I know of a underground label which has stopped existing since 2006 or so(sneeuwstorm productions), they made the most ugly black metal I've ever heard, and they called it trôô. According to what you often hear about BM (that is it a big joke) they where the most true BM there was, but really, I don't know, I think it depends more on quality.

What sub-genre the band would be classified as does not have much to do with whether or not they are "True Metal", however, usually a band that would be classified as Nu Metal, Hair Metal, Glam Metal, Rap Metal, etc., would not be considered "true". For the most part, though, a band would be considered "true" (well, this is just how I define bands as true or not) is:

1. Their lyrics. Are they deep? Are they well written? Or are they just random crap about drugs and sex. Do the lyrics pertain to the type of music they are? For example, Grindcore and Brutal Death Metal use rather gory, disgusting lyrics. If you're the lyricist for a Grindcore band and you write lyrics about slitting your wrist and blacking your eyes, you probably wouldn't be considered "true" and most likely would be laughed at. That brings me to another point. How many good Metal bands have you listened to actually write lyrics about killing themselves over a girl, or killing themselves in general? How many write lyrics about how they had their heart broken a million times by some girl who left them for another guy, and decided to marry them. Not many. There are bands that will write about suicide, or a slight love song once in a while, but they will do it in a much "deeper" and "emotional" manner.

2. You write the music for yourself and your love for music. A band who does it just for the money, fame, girls, etc., aren't true. To me, Metal is all about the music. It is all about the passion and all about who you are as a person and defining who you are. I laugh at any band who produces their music simply for money and fame. Believe it or not, you can tell if a band is like that with their music and what they've done in the past to benefit the band. Most bands that switch record labels to a bigger, more well-known one are doing it to become more famous and make more cash. This is why I disrespect a band like that. In some cases though, it just kind of happens, and that is fine.

Anyways, these are my thoughts on the subject.

I don't believe 'true metal' means something today. It's just metal or not. A few days ago I listened "Prey" by Tiamat. people call it atmospheric metal. I don't think this is metal... Listen to it to understand.. Atmospheric yes but where is the metal part???

Okay, I do believe in the True/Untrue Metal thing. But, I myself, do not critisize others for their taste, or limit myself to only one genre. Here's my views: Any Metal band, that gets any play time on MTV, is instantly untrue. Therefore, they then become part of what is like the true mainstream, not like the Metal mainstream, where there's a band that all of us know of, but like the real mainstream... the one that Britney Spears is in.... ewwww.

And even if the instrumentals really aren't considered Metal, as long as they have the spirit of Metal, and have influence, I would consider them Metal. Basically, if they're in it for anything other than the music (money, famousness), then they are no longer considered Metal... at least, thats my view.

Manowar is as true metal as Britney spears, if there is one false metal band out there it is Manowar.

Written by Haightredy on 23.10.2008 at 00:19

Here's my views: Any Metal band, that gets any play time on MTV, is instantly untrue.

Hilarious, so according to this reasoning that means that Motorhead, Iron Maiden, Judas Priest, Metallica in their good days, Megadeth, Slayer, Satyricon, Pantera, Blind Guardian, Cannibal Corpse etc. are ALL untrue.

Written by Marcel Hubregtse on 23.10.2008 at 10:20

Written by Haightredy on 23.10.2008 at 00:19

Here's my views: Any Metal band, that gets any play time on MTV, is instantly untrue.

Hilarious, so according to this reasoning that means that Motorhead, Iron Maiden, Judas Priest, Metallica in their good days, Megadeth, Slayer, Satyricon, Pantera, Blind Guardian, Cannibal Corpse etc. are ALL untrue.

Lol. Okay, I probably should have thought that statement through first... what I mean is, any Band that hasn't already existed for many years, and established the title of metal legend. And besides, it's impossable to make any of those bands become unture by any means.

True = understands metal as a worldview, so they don't have to just imitate the technique of past bands.

Suffocation = true;
Cannibal Corpse = fake.

Once you see it... it's very clear.

Written by Conservationist on 24.10.2008 at 23:35


Cannibal Corpse = fake.

Not that I like them, hell no, but this is just too hilarious

Written by VPeter on 23.10.2008 at 00:36

Manowar is as true metal as Britney spears, if there is one false metal band out there it is Manowar.

how do you figure? a band that constantly praises and signifies they're love for metal ISN'T metal?

I do believe that there is "true" and "untrue" metal. Untrue metal being the obvious ones, Slipknot, Korn, SOAD, all the MTV-VH1 etc etc bands

True metal I feel is any band that is trying to be metal, whether they succeed or not. Look at Nightwish, for example. I REALLY hate them, I just can't stand listening to them. But I respect the fact that they try to fucken play hard and be metal, so I consider them metal.

Written by thesabbathfan on 25.10.2008 at 02:00

Written by VPeter on 23.10.2008 at 00:36

Manowar is as true metal as Britney spears, if there is one false metal band out there it is Manowar.

...
all the MTV-VH1 etc etc bands
...

Here we go again... Slayer, Megadeth, MANOWAR were all and still are regularly featured there.

Btw Manowar are the biggest fuckign POSERS ever. Going on about wimps and losers leave the hall and on their first couple of albums stating that no keyboards were used but now using keyboards. THEY ARE PATHETIC

Written by thesabbathfan on 25.10.2008 at 02:00

Written by VPeter on 23.10.2008 at 00:36

Manowar is as true metal as Britney spears, if there is one false metal band out there it is Manowar.

I do believe that there is "true" and "untrue" metal. Untrue metal being the obvious ones, Slipknot, Korn, SOAD, all the MTV-VH1 etc etc bands

i've seen Judas Priest, Enslaved, Obituary, Maiden, Metallica, Slayer, Morbid Angel, and on and on on eMpTy Vee and/or VH-1... i guess they are all untrue.

if that's the case, i'd rather be untrue.

Written by BitterCOld on 25.10.2008 at 07:16

Written by thesabbathfan on 25.10.2008 at 02:00

Written by VPeter on 23.10.2008 at 00:36

Manowar is as true metal as Britney spears, if there is one false metal band out there it is Manowar.

I do believe that there is "true" and "untrue" metal. Untrue metal being the obvious ones, Slipknot, Korn, SOAD, all the MTV-VH1 etc etc bands

i've seen Judas Priest, Enslaved, Obituary, Maiden, Metallica, Slayer, Morbid Angel, and on and on on eMpTy Vee and/or VH-1... i guess they are all untrue.

if that's the case, i'd rather be untrue.

ah, touche.

I'm beat.

It really matters in what way a band is depicted or addressed on MTV or VH1. I was really interested to watch the show 'HEAVY' on VH1 when they talked about Dio and Iron Maiden and even the hair bands. If a metal band shows up on a MTV show and does an interview, it will most likely mean they're conforming to the MTV watcher. It'd be suicide to keep an authentic sound that won't register to the common MTV viewers. Those people usually don't listen to music for music appreciation. In the end, music appreciation is really what metal is about. Damn straight I'm going to bang my head to a part that just sounds good, but ultimately I listen to metal for deeper reasons. If I can listen to a metal band's CD from the first song all the way to the last song without skipping any tracks, that band is doing something right according to my taste. I'm prone to call that band true. Their marketing techniques can alter that though. If Behemoth decided to tour with Sum41 then it'd be one sad day in the metal world and they definitely would be questioned. I still think their music would be true, but their marketing wouldn't be at all. Yet I am more than sure that the album they'd be promoting on that tour would be a mangina of an album.

If the music is true to its roots then that band has a 'true' quality indeed. If that band successfully progresses into their own sound while keeping the metal roots alive, they are even better in my opinion. If the band doesn't have to water down their music to conform to the general masses, they are true. I don't mean it's wrong if an extreme band becomes a little less extreme, or a progressive band becoming less technical to sell a little more records or anything. It's a larger scale of watering down. Of course many metalheads feel there shouldn't be any watering down or even change in general what so ever and that's just where preference comes in. I don't believe that's what metal is about. Not progressing brings redundancy and redundancy eventually causes abandonment.

Now if the band members really don't listen to metal at all or they dress/ act entirely differently on their off time and just play metal for shock factor, I'd say they would be viewed as very untrue as individuals. This will inevitably affect their music, then eventually manifest into untrue music. People do use this true/ untrue aspect to use as an additional criticizing tool and I feel has been used out of context. It doesn't really bother me when people do that because I know what bands I like and for what specific, detailed reasons. Whether a band sticks to its musical/ marketing roots is a preference, not a law of nature. If one loves Metal then they should want the roots to stay alive, and should be able relate to the roots; otherwise they aren't that great of a supporter after all and are untrue. As I read earlier, music is subjective, but I add that metal itself is an acquired sound.

Well, in my opinion there are two definitions of TRUE Metal..;

1. True Metal as a kind of genre for Metal bands that keep the spirit of the eighties metal movement alive. Bands like Helstar, Jag Panzer, Anvil, Nasty Savage, Attacker, Overlorde, Cloven Hoof, Deadly Blessing and less 'famous' bands like Vortex, Defender,... but also new bands who play in vein of these bands like Artic Flame, Axehammer, Heathendom, Portrait etc... Especially in tradional "eighties" styles you will find these bands (Heavy Metal, US (power) metal and Thrash). Every year there are several festivals with bands like these; most famous is the KEEP IT TRUE festival in Germany (next saturday there's another edition with Flotsam & Jetsam, Nasty Savage, Girlschool, Evil, Tokyo Blade,...). Meanwhile also in Death and Black Metal we know TRUE Metal bands but their spirits are lying elswhere

2. A wide ranged definition for bands that keep on holding the holy unwritten rules of metal in their heart... "Nobody likes us but we don't care" has always been an important sentence although a lot of bands, even true bands from the first definition, abandoned this spirit... Let Metallica be the perfect example of a band that left their ideas behind to make money. We can't really blame them. Other examples are Manowar, Slayer,.... I consider these bands still as TRUE metal although music became their way to make money and you know; they deserve it!

False Metal in my opinion are bands that have always played Metal to earn money and never had the Metal spirit in their heart. Often these bands are overhyped by the metal media because of the fact their labels paid a lot of money for a lot of advertisement. A lot of labels are doing this and most youngsters buy cd's from bands that are supported because their label paid for it, not because of the strenght of the music. That's the main reason that a lot of bands, mentioned in the first definition, never broke through. Examples? Fill it in your self! On this formu there are a lot of fans of bands that are, in my opinion 'overhyped'...

I agree with your thoughts on false metal, Hellish Star. Its well stated. A band using the value of metal and taking advantage of metalheads as a financial outlet makes a band less true to me. Especially if they don't live and breath metal on a daily basis and only see the music as a good market.

I have to say that I feel the eighties metal movement was just that - a movement. I don't feel its any truer than 90's or 2000's metal bands nor do I think true metal ended with 80's inspired metal. I know you meant that its true in the pure form of metal and unmodified. These bands are originators and grandfathers of metal and thats what they have going on for them. I still give mass respect to metal pioneers through out the years and find their goals to be just as true as the originators. I'm more comfortable with calling Heavy Metal 'Standard Metal'. Whether or not a band realizes it, its the basic canvas other genres build on. Without Heavy Metal, its certain Metal genres wouldn't exist the way they do. I still feel bands like Nevermore and Behemoth are still true metal because the music is influence purely by metal. Not reggae or gospel etc. These two bands are extremely true.

True metal? Sounds like a stupid definition metalheads place on the types/bands of metal they like in order to feel good about themselves lol. It's pretty funny how most of the above posts are people defending bands they like and reasoning why they should be "true metal".

Written by [user id=34045] on 11.11.2008 at 01:06

True metal? Sounds like a stupid definition metalheads place on the types/bands of metal they like in order to feel good about themselves lol. It's pretty funny how most of the above posts are people defending bands they like and reasoning why they should be "true metal".

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Written by [user id=34045] on 11.11.2008 at 01:06

True metal? Sounds like a stupid definition metalheads place on the types/bands of metal they like in order to feel good about themselves lol. It's pretty funny how most of the above posts are people defending bands they like and reasoning why they should be "true metal".

You're completely right - People do use that term to justify the bands they love. Its not always that simple though. Kvlt terms aside, I think true metal is a valid term. I'm afraid that people who think all metal is just metal, really aren't into metal that much and will listens to one or two metal genres with simple music opinions. There's a clear division of genres and what bands are true to their genre and metal nature. I can say I don't like many death metal bands like Suffocation, but they're pretty damn true IMO. I'm not saying only people who barely listen to metal or aren't that involved believe there isn't a "true metal", but I'm in great belief that they take the cake.

I certainly don't criticize anyone who isn't 100% into metal because I wasn't always into metal either. Metal still isn't all I listen to. I had the same thoughts about metal and how its all the same when I first started listening. I have a couple of long time metalhead friends who think there's only three kinds of metal: Metal, Thrash, and Death Metal (actually most of my friends barely listen to metal if at all). Its fine to have that opinion, but I wouldn't see that thought process there for someone who has a deep affinity with metal. It turns out that their metal knowledge and listening experiences were limited and listen to just Slayer, Lamb of God and Metallica. They believe that Lamb of God is death metal. They never heard of bands like Hypocrisy or Evergrey and not even the band Death. I'd like to say they definitely wouldn't know which band was true and which wasn't. If one can not tell the difference, then they don't have to worry about the term "True Metal".

Anyways, I don't want to sound like a broken record, and I feel the last few posts were reasonable, so refer to them.

Written by Carrion Misery on 11.11.2008 at 07:58

Written by [user id=34045] on 11.11.2008 at 01:06

True metal? Sounds like a stupid definition metalheads place on the types/bands of metal they like in order to feel good about themselves lol. It's pretty funny how most of the above posts are people defending bands they like and reasoning why they should be "true metal".

You're completely right - People do use that term to justify the bands they love. Its not always that simple though. Kvlt terms aside, I think true metal is a valid term. I'm afraid that people who think all metal is just metal, really aren't into metal that much and will listens to one or two metal genres with simple music opinions. There's a clear division of genres and what bands are true to their genre and metal nature. I can say I don't like many death metal bands like Suffocation, but they're pretty damn true IMO. I'm not saying only people who barely listen to metal or aren't that involved believe there isn't a "true metal", but I'm in great belief that they take the cake.

I certainly don't criticize anyone who isn't 100% into metal because I wasn't always into metal either. Metal still isn't all I listen to. I had the same thoughts about metal and how its all the same when I first started listening. I have a couple of long time metalhead friends who think there's only three kinds of metal: Metal, Thrash, and Death Metal (actually most of my friends barely listen to metal if at all). Its fine to have that opinion, but I wouldn't see that thought process there for someone who has a deep affinity with metal. It turns out that their metal knowledge and listening experiences were limited and listen to just Slayer, Lamb of God and Metallica. They believe that Lamb of God is death metal. They never heard of bands like Hypocrisy or Evergrey and not even the band Death. I'd like to say they definitely wouldn't know which band was true and which wasn't. If one can not tell the difference, then they don't have to worry about the term "True Metal".

Anyways, I don't want to sound like a broken record, and I feel the last few posts were reasonable, so refer to them.

I get what you're saying about newbs to metal (like myself ) not really understanding which bands would qualify as "true metal" in the opinions of experienced metalheads. You have to understand though, that true metal isn't even a real term. People just use it as an exuse to feel proud of the bands they like, for example you said Suffocation is true metal. 99% of the people on this site would probably agree with you (the huge # of death metal fans pressures general metal fans to respect DM) but then i'm confident that there are guys out there who would say Korn or Slipknot are true-er then them.

What makes one band less true then the other? Someone might say Korn isn't because they're mainstream, but then again so are Iron Maiden and Slayer. Someone might rip on Korn for being influenced by other styles of music, but then Slayer (and thrash in general) were heavily influenced by hardcore punk. It turns out that "true metal" is a lot like the term "heavy" among metal heads; something not really defined but people attach it to their favourite bands anyways.

What i'm trying to get across is that there is a REALLY sketchy definition painted by metalheads about what "true metal" is and should be, but for the most part it's just people trying to feel good about themselves; making it a useless, dividing term.

Written by [user id=34045] on 12.11.2008 at 00:51


I get what you're saying about newbs to metal (like myself ) not really understanding which bands would qualify as "true metal" in the opinions of experienced metalheads. You have to understand though, that true metal isn't even a real term.

Well, it actually is an existing term which is used quite often (especially in Europe in a country such as Germany)

Like Hellish Star pointed out a couple of posts earlier:

1. True Metal as a kind of genre for Metal bands that keep the spirit of the eighties metal movement alive. Bands like Helstar, Jag Panzer, Anvil, Nasty Savage, Attacker, Overlorde, Cloven Hoof, Deadly Blessing and less 'famous' bands like Vortex, Defender,... but also new bands who play in vein of these bands like Artic Flame, Axehammer, Heathendom, Portrait etc... Especially in tradional "eighties" styles you will find these bands (Heavy Metal, US (power) metal and Thrash). Every year there are several festivals with bands like these; most famous is the KEEP IT TRUE festival in Germany (next saturday there's another edition with Flotsam & Jetsam, Nasty Savage, Girlschool, Evil, Tokyo Blade,...). Meanwhile also in Death and Black Metal we know TRUE Metal bands but their spirits are lying elswhere.

Hence a festival such as Keep It True

Written by [user id=34045] on 12.11.2008 at 00:51
I get what you're saying about newbs to metal (like myself ) not really understanding which bands would qualify as "true metal" in the opinions of experienced metalheads. You have to understand though, that true metal isn't even a real term. People just use it as an exuse to feel proud of the bands they like, for example you said Suffocation is true metal. 99% of the people on this site would probably agree with you (the huge # of death metal fans pressures general metal fans to respect DM) but then i'm confident that there are guys out there who would say Korn or Slipknot are true-er then them.

What makes one band less true then the other? Someone might say Korn isn't because they're mainstream, but then again so are Iron Maiden and Slayer. Someone might rip on Korn for being influenced by other styles of music, but then Slayer (and thrash in general) were heavily influenced by hardcore punk. It turns out that "true metal" is a lot like the term "heavy" among metal heads; something not really defined but people attach it to their favourite bands anyways.

What i'm trying to get across is that there is a REALLY sketchy definition painted by metalheads about what "true metal" is and should be, but for the most part it's just people trying to feel good about themselves; making it a useless, dividing term.

I can't say I'm terribly impresseed by your strawmen.... Consider this: Some people might say Korn isn't metal for certain reasons, others might say they are for other reasons. Does that mean "metal" isn't a "real term"? People don't use such terms as "true metal" or "good music" as an excuse to feel good about bands they like (that barely even makes sense), rather they use it to label bands that they feel meet certain (vaguely) quantifiable standards. You can say a term is vague, but this isn't a reason to challenge its existence as a concept. "True" tends to roughly equate with respectability in terms of metal ideals, there's nothing useless about denoting respectable bands. And it's supposed to be dividing, it's supposed to divide the good bands from the shitty ones (or else the more pure metal bands from the rest).

Personally if I ever use the term it's only in passing, I certainly don't have some scientific method of determining which bands that it applies to. Aversion to the term seems to stem mainly from people averse to associating any kind of meaning or integrity to the art form in general, but that's just a broad musing...

Written by totaliteraliter on 12.11.2008 at 02:38

Written by [user id=34045] on 12.11.2008 at 00:51
I get what you're saying about newbs to metal (like myself ) not really understanding which bands would qualify as "true metal" in the opinions of experienced metalheads. You have to understand though, that true metal isn't even a real term. People just use it as an exuse to feel proud of the bands they like, for example you said Suffocation is true metal. 99% of the people on this site would probably agree with you (the huge # of death metal fans pressures general metal fans to respect DM) but then i'm confident that there are guys out there who would say Korn or Slipknot are true-er then them.

What makes one band less true then the other? Someone might say Korn isn't because they're mainstream, but then again so are Iron Maiden and Slayer. Someone might rip on Korn for being influenced by other styles of music, but then Slayer (and thrash in general) were heavily influenced by hardcore punk. It turns out that "true metal" is a lot like the term "heavy" among metal heads; something not really defined but people attach it to their favourite bands anyways.




People don't use such terms as "true metal" or "good music" as an excuse to feel good about bands they like (that barely even makes sense), rather they use it to label bands that they feel meet certain (vaguely) quantifiable standards. You can say a term is vague, but this isn't a reason to challenge its existence as a concept. "True" tends to roughly equate with respectability in terms of metal ideals, there's nothing useless about denoting respectable bands. And it's supposed to be dividing, it's supposed to divide the good bands from the shitty ones (or else the more pure metal bands from the rest).

No one labels their favourite bands as true metal? That's a pretty dumb statment which could be easily proven wrong by taking look at the attitudes of metalheads. And for the record, the people that wouldn't consider Korn as metal are the same people that go around with this true metal shit; how one style/band is true-er then the other because of whatever reasons.

The true metal term divides the shitty bands from the rest? My oh my you're a giant hypocrite...I've been saying since the beginning that many people just label bands they as true-metal because they think they're good and they want to feel good about likeing "real/true metal" as opposed to "false metal". You say i'm wrong without giving a reason, but then you go ahead and type something that proves my point...Thanks lol. The problem emerges when someone likes different styles of metal then you, how do you know whether your styles are "true-er" then his?

I guess ive typed long enough though, im done. If you want to be childish and go on with this "my metal is True!" and "arent i cool cause my metals true" crap go right ahead...

Written by [user id=34045] on 12.11.2008 at 23:23
No one labels their favourite bands as true metal? That's a pretty dumb statment which could be easily proven wrong by taking look at the attitudes of metalheads.

I didn't make that statement. Try reading my post again, then have another go at replying if you wish.