Are [insert band name here] metal?

[BlutAusNerd]

Why are slipknot fans called Maggots?

Because it is an accurate assessment of their physical and personality traits.

[H34VYM3T4LD4V3]

Re: Are [insert band name here] metal?

Because it is an accurate assessment of their physical and personality traits.

Personally I think the M should be an F... Joke, people can listen to what they want. But noone can make me listen to what I don't want to listen to.

[RelentlessOblivion]

here's a couple which may prove challenging are Deep Purple actually metal? is Jimi Hendrix and/or The Jimi Hendrix Experience metal? and are Led Zeppelin metal?

[BlutAusNerd]

here's a couple which may prove challenging are Deep Purple actually metal? is Jimi Hendrix and/or The Jimi Hendrix Experience metal? and are Led Zeppelin metal?

Hendrix is not metal, despite being wildly influential to it, much like MC5, Yardbirds, Cream, etc... At the start of the 70's though, Led Zeppelin and Deep Purple were metal. Deep Purple had a few albums prior to In Rock that were more psychedelic and bluesy, but by the time of In Rock they were metal pioneers. The same goes for Zep, but they shed those metal traits much more quickly than Deep Purple, I would really only give their first and maybe second album metal credit. Many people draw the line in different places, but I don't see any universe in which Deep Purple could be excluded, unless you're willing to also exclude Judas Priest.

[H34VYM3T4LD4V3]

Re: Are [insert band name here] metal? I LOVE Judas Priest and Deep Purple!!! \m/

[RelentlessOblivion]

theoretically at least it is possible to exclude these bands from the metal genre to some extent as the metal genre began to take form the sound of bands like Deep Purple, Judas Priest and even Black Sabbath was distinguished as seperate from the later sound of bands like Iron Maiden and Angel Witch which were in turn distinguished as seperate from Slayer and Metallica and so on. In the mind of a person who considers only the current cache of bands having progressed to the next stage in the evolutionary process to be metal all predecessors would be considered influential on the genre without actually fitting within the sphere of metal. Of course such a person would be viewed as a fool by his or her peers within the wider metal community but they would no doubt be able to rationalise their attitude. In fact I suspect people such as the hypothetical individual described above do in fact exist.

[H34VYM3T4LD4V3]

I definetly agree that at the time Deep Purple and Black Sabbath were metal, but tbh i still consider Purple Hard Rock, same with AC/DC, they were kind of metal at the time.

[BlutAusNerd]

theoretically at least it is possible to exclude these bands from the metal genre to some extent as the metal genre began to take form the sound of bands like Deep Purple' date=' Judas Priest and even Black Sabbath was distinguished as seperate from the later sound of bands like Iron Maiden and Angel Witch which were in turn distinguished as seperate from Slayer and Metallica and so on. In the mind of a person who considers only the current cache of bands having progressed to the next stage in the evolutionary process to be metal all predecessors would be considered influential on the genre without actually fitting within the sphere of metal. Of course such a person would be viewed as a fool by his or her peers within the wider metal community but they would no doubt be able to rationalise their attitude. In fact I suspect people such as the hypothetical individual described above do in fact exist.[/quote'] Actually, they can't rationalize it away. It is completely irrational to state that a band that labels themselves as heavy metal would not have done so based on the sounds of prior heavy metal band to whom the term had originally been implied, what you speak of is historical revisionism. It definitely happens, especially in this day and age, but it's far from rational. The only way this could be rationalized is if the band in question had never heard heavy metal and somehow accidentally stumbled upon the sound themselves, not having been influenced by heavy metal bands older than them, but even then they would both occupy the label with one not being able to exclude the other.

[Viking]

No I don't think they are metal but they are great rock bands and I think they have influenced metal bands definitely. Personally, I love those bands. At least Queen and Blue Oyster Cult. I haven't heard Paganini.

[Viking]

POD is not metal. Neither is korn or slipknot. slipknot is nu metal which I do not consider metal. Linkin Park is not metal and I can't stand them. We all know justin bieber is not metal and he is a girl.

[orcslayr23]

I wouldn't consider any of them metal.

[H34VYM3T4LD4V3]

POD is not metal. Neither is korn or slipknot. slipknot is nu metal which I do not consider metal. Linkin Park is not metal and I can't stand them. We all know justin bieber is not metal and he is a girl.

I totally agree mate.

[JBaker]

We all know justin bieber is not metal and he is a girl.

What an edgy, controversial statement to make on a Metal forum. Lol, I'm joking... Anyway, here's my take on it: Slipknot: pretty undeniably Metal at least to my ears. I get why people don't like them, but no argument has yet persuaded me to not consider them Metal (even if they are relatively commercial and some non-Metalheads like some of their stuff)... especially if we're gonna start calling Deep Purple and Zeppelin Metal bands... Korn: No, not really. They have definitely released at least heavily Metal-inspired music in the past, but their style experiments with too many other genres for Metal to be the overriding force and they've released some albums that are barely even Rock: hence, to me, they're not a Metal band. P.O.D.: Now, I must confess, a few of their tracks have sort of become my guilty pleasures. I like playing them when I'm slightly inebriated for some reason... go figure... But no; I don't consider them Metal at all. Some of their "heavier" tracks just scrape through into Alt Metal, but really; they're a radio-friendly Rock band with big choruses and simple melodies for people with little imagination, IMO (much like another band on this list). Avenged Sevenfold: Not a fan... what I've heard of their latest release sounds pretty bloody awful. I think some of their earlier stuff could just about be classed as Metal, but it's pushing it a bit. I just consider them Hard Rock, really. Linkin Park: no, certainly not... similar to my verdict on P.O.D., but to a greater extent. Godsmack: very much at the point where Hard Rock and Metal meet, but I'd say slightly more leaning towards Hard Rock... WWE or "wrestle Metal" is a good description here, I think. Disturbed: similar to Godsmack, but I personally am much more fond of them. Rob Zombie: yes, absolutely. 'Nuff said. Rammstein: yes; Industrial Metal which is a genre of Metal.

[JBaker]

Oh, forgot SOAD: Alternative Metal best describes them, I think. They're too heavy to simply be called Alt Rock.

[RelentlessOblivion]

There are certain bands where context is important. Deep Purple are one of those. They sit with Black Sabbath as pioneers of metal largely because of their sound which was dramatically heavier then most music at the time. I personally think that metal's progression to where we currently stand is partially to blame for the confusion surrounding certain bands. If we stop the clock before nu-metal comes into the picture then bands such as slipknot would never be considered metal as there is not enough metal in their sound to be considered a part of the genre. However because we have this blurring of the genre lines bands which are at best only influenced by metal get chucked into the ring as well.

[BlutAusNerd]

Re: Are [insert band name here] metal?

There are certain bands where context is important. Deep Purple are one of those. They sit with Black Sabbath as pioneers of metal largely because of their sound which was dramatically heavier then most music at the time. I personally think that metal's progression to where we currently stand is partially to blame for the confusion surrounding certain bands. If we stop the clock before nu-metal comes into the picture then bands such as slipknot would never be considered metal as there is not enough metal in their sound to be considered a part of the genre. However because we have this blurring of the genre lines bands which are at best only influenced by metal get chucked into the ring as well.

I don't think that the problem is the evolution of the genre, but people's inability to see it that way from now looking into the past. I constantly complain about many young metalheads stating ludicrous things like "Venom isn't black metal, it's just NWOBHM", or "Possessed isn't death metal, just thrash", or "Deep Purple isn't heavy metal, just bluesy hard rock". The problem is that many of these people who got into the music after it had evolved to a certain point are trying to contextualize post evolution, sizing up Venom against Dark Funeral, Possessed against Nile, and Deep Purple against Metal Church, when it should be the other way around. It makes no sense to exclude these bands from conversations on the genre that they themselves invented, merely because they were so influential that movements had sparked following their revolutionary sounds that had spawned a great deal of creativity and growth, without whom that growth may not have been possible. Sure, another band would have come around, but then we should be talking about whatever other originator instead, and not discard them for getting the ball rolling in the first place. Instead of using backwards logic to include Slipknot merely because there are other bands included based on today's standards that don't sound all that metal, it would make more sense to exclude Slipknot for not only sounding nothing like the founding fathers of metal, but also not being a part of the evolution of metal as it has progressed. Some of the guys that started the band played death metal before Slipknot, and you can hear a couple of those techniques carried over, but the base of their sound is rooted in Korn riffs and hip-hop beats and vocal lines, just played at a higher tempo. Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk 2

[RelentlessOblivion]

But that's what I'm saying. Bands are being excluded based on the progression of the sound whilst others are being included despite not fitting the genre. Mike's refusal to acknowledge that traditional doom is even a genre is something I therefore find extremely perplexing given that were it not for bands like Pentagram and Candlemass there would have been nothing for the bands they inspired to evolve from.

[BlutAusNerd]

Re: Are [insert band name here] metal?

But that's what I'm saying. Bands are being excluded based on the progression of the sound whilst others are being included despite not fitting the genre. Mike's refusal to acknowledge that traditional doom is even a genre is something I therefore find extremely perplexing given that were it not for bands like Pentagram and Candlemass there would have been nothing for the bands they inspired to evolve from.

NTNR is a different case entirely... Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk 2

[RelentlessOblivion]

Don't we know it...

[JBaker]

You could make the case Purple and Zeppelin were Metal as they were heavier than the other popular Rock bands at the time, but how, then, would you differentiate them from Sabbath who focussed far more on heaviness and other such 'Metal' qualities than either of those 2? If Purple and Zeppelin being heavier than, I dunno, The Who or Pink Floyd, qualifies them as Metal, does that not mean Slipknot or even someone like Alice in Chains could definitely be considered Metal? I agree context is important, and in the context of the 21st Century, few would now consider Purple or Zeppelin Metal in the vein of Priest, Maiden or Sabbath. Most who intensely dislike Metal due to its harsh and loud nature will still find Purple or Zeppelin more than palatable, but find Sabbath or Motorhead unlistenable! Anyway, back to the topic at hand: I have a few tricky ones... what about: Deftones Tool Faith No More Alice in Chains Guns 'n' Roses Poison the Well Converge Bullet for my Valentine 36 Crazyfists I have my own opinions on these already, but am interested in what you guys think.

[JBaker]

Oh, I'd like to throw Cancer Bats in there, too!

[BlutAusNerd]

Re: Are [insert band name here] metal?

You could make the case Purple and Zeppelin were Metal as they were heavier than the other popular Rock bands at the time, but how, then, would you differentiate them from Sabbath who focussed far more on heaviness and other such 'Metal' qualities than either of those 2? If Purple and Zeppelin being heavier than, I dunno, The Who or Pink Floyd, qualifies them as Metal, does that not mean Slipknot or even someone like Alice in Chains could definitely be considered Metal? I agree context is important, and in the context of the 21st Century, few would now consider Purple or Zeppelin Metal in the vein of Priest, Maiden or Sabbath. Most who intensely dislike Metal due to its harsh and loud nature will still find Purple or Zeppelin more than palatable, but find Sabbath or Motorhead unlistenable! Anyway, back to the topic at hand: I have a few tricky ones... what about: Deftones Tool Faith No More Alice in Chains Guns 'n' Roses Poison the Well Converge Bullet for my Valentine 36 Crazyfists I have my own opinions on these already, but am interested in what you guys think.

The difference between Deep Purple and Zep vs. The Who and Pink Floyd is that the first group was the immediate basis of heavy metal, along with Black Sabbath, as opposed to being an influence upon certain aspects of it like the second group. Sabbath stand out as having the most long lasting influence, so they tend to be more immediately recognized based on many of their characteristics as forefathers of heavy metal, whereas less of DP and Zep's characteristics carried on past metal in the 70's and 80's. This doesn't make them less heavy metal, it just means their sonic legacy has not carried through as far to modern metal bands. That is what I mean by viewing them in historical context and not judging them based on today, not comparing them to other bands in terms of "heaviness". In the cases of Slipknot and Alice in Chains et all, it's undeniable that there are elements of metal in their sound, but since the other elements of their sound outweigh metal in the equation, I don't consider them to be metal. It takes more than.just some guitar distortion and "heavy" riffs to make metal. The point is not how popular these groups are, nor how "listenable" they are to the mainstream, that has nothing to do with metal. Of the other bands you mentioned, I would say that only Tool and Faith No More have enough metal in their sound to qualify. Others do have metal in their sound, but it is what I would consider to be less than enough to merit the label. This says nothing of their quality, just where their sound lies. Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk 2

[RelentlessOblivion]

You can hear Purple and Zep in the early sound of bands like Judas Priest. There are characteristics of both bands which are clearly metal and are the over-riding basis of their sound. This is how you distinguish what is and what is not metal. If there is metal present but it is not the dominant ingredient in a band's sound they are not metal I think we've been over this before. Now here's some tricky ones: Rush, UFO and Thin Lizzy

[JBaker]

Of the other bands you mentioned, I would say that only Tool and Faith No More have enough metal in their sound to qualify. Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk 2

This is where it gets quite interesting. I assumed that my 'threshold' for what can be considered Metal is simply lower than yours, but it seems to be more complicated than that, despite our both using the concept of 'if the overriding sound/influences of a band are Metal, you can call the band in question Metal'. I personally don't consider FNM a Metal band because they experiment with so many different genres: Metal just happening to be one of them. I'd call them an Experimental Rock band who have implemented Alt Rock, Funk, Metal, Hip Hop, a touch of Jazz and have even flirted with Trip Hop or Chillout on songs like 'Stripsearch'. I really do like this band, but, despite some tracks being best described as Metal, the overall 'vibe' of the band doesn't scream 'Metal' to me. I'm the same with Tool (who I also love, btw). To me, they're an arty Prog Rock band who do flirt with Metal on occasion, but I feel, again, that they can't just be described as a Metal band. With regards to Purple and Zeppelin, they may have released some Metal-based material in the past, but in a similar (yet completely different!) way to Faith No More and Tool, some of their music being Metal-friendly isn't sufficient to qualify them as a Metal band. Indeed, someone earlier (I think it was you, BAN) said you'd only give one of Zeppelin's albums Metal cred... hence, this does not qualify them as a Metal band for me. And, just because you can hear Deep Purple in Priest's music, that still isn't enough to qualify them as a Metal band for me as you can also hear quite clear non-Metal influences like Cream and Jimi Hendrix in the music of nearly all pioneering Metal acts. The term 'Heavy Metal' actually started as a derogatory way of referring to bands in the 70s who were considered too loud and aggressive for music critics at that time. Therefore, heaviness plays a crucial role in a band being considered Metal or not: as that's how the term actually became popularised. Black Sabbath still sounds heavy-as-fuck to this day: the other bands mentioned, not so much. If the bands being considered Metal at the time means that we have to still call them Metal now, what about the fact that none of these bands ever considered themselves Metal? Even Sabbath tend to label themselves as Hard Rock.

[JBaker]

I put Rush, UFO and Thin Lizzy in the same category as Purple and Zeppelin, although I consider Thin Lizzy to be the least Metal-friendly of the 3 (still some good tunes, though!). I'm far from an expert on any of those, though, so I'm quite willing to accept being mistaken. If I am, point me to songs you think can refute my claims (feel free to do the same with Deep Purple and Zeppelin, too). I'm gonna answer mine now: Deftones: Very difficult. I think I'd rather say Metal-based than a proper Metal band. They have released plenty of material I'd unquestioningly call Metal, but I think any attempt to categorise the band as a whole should take into account the considerable Post-Rock, Alt Rock and Shoegaze sounds and influences as well. I guess (although I'm not big on this term) Experimental Metal could do it. Tool: Already answered this earlier... I'd say Prog Rock with the odd dash of Metal thrown in. Faith No More: Again, already done this: I'd say Experimental Rock Alice in Chains: I'd say Hard Rock, with considerable Metal influences... I can see how they tie in with Nirvana et al, but I don't consider them a straight-up Grunge band. Blues plays quite a role as well. Guns 'n' Roses: Rock... Hard Rock, if you wanna call it that, but Metal is just stretching it too far. I'm really not a fan of this band or what they represent. They're only a step above rubbish like Bon Jovi to me. I'd say I don't understand their appeal, but I do, really. I just don't like 'em. At all. :L Poison the Well: Unsure. I can completely see why they could be called a Metal band, but I always associate them more with the Hardcore (or rather, 'Post-Hardcore') scene. Pretty killer band. Converge: I would say... musically, yes; aesthetically no. I'd call them a Hardcore band that also brings the Metal in spades. Another awesome band. This is why I call myself a heavy music fan rather than a Metalhead. These guys are ridiculously heavy, but not quite part of the proper Metal culture. Bullet for my Valentine: I hate this band... I really do. Their earlier stuff does just tick enough boxes for them to just about scrape through into Metal territory (I hang my head in shame as I type this), but it's always been so commercial and poppy, the phrase 'Metal band conceived at Disney' definitely comes to mind. Metal, but very, very bad light Metal which reeks of modern uber-polished Emo stuff. Their new stuff is Hard Rock (as truly woeful as it is). 36 Crazyfists: I wouldn't be entirely shocked if most didn't know who these guys were as they're not that well-known outside their hometown of Anchorage, Alaska. They're considered a kind of light Metalcore in the vein of Atreyu, but I don't quite agree with that (although I do see where the comparison comes from). First and foremost, think they're much better than that. I think their first album was a mix of Nu Metal and Post-Hardcore. Nearly all their releases after that, I'd call pretty much straight-up Post-Hardcore in the vein of Glassjaw, with an occasional vibe that reminds me of Deftones, and some melodic Metalcore-style riffs. Their latest, Collisions and Castaways,blends in some heavier influences from the Modern American Metal scene (i.e. Lamb of God, Chimaira etc.)... I'd say, on reflection, not a Metal band, but a Post-Hardcore band, but with a few more albums like the last one, they could well become one. Shit, I need a lie-down after all this typing! Haha!