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.