Is Disturbed 'metal' to you?

I certainly don't include Disturbed in the same category as the nu metal bands. K0rn, Limp Biscuit, etc. Disturbed is different from them.

However, I was having a conversation with a local friend recently - and he told me that he considered Disturbed to be a 'metal' band. Just like Judas Priest, Iron Maiden - or anyone else along these lines.

He also classifies bands like K0rn, Limp Biscuit, etc - to be nu metal. But he goes as far as to think that Disturbed is an actual metal band.

So ... I was wondering. What do you think?

Personally, I'm a fan of Disturbed. I've picked up every one of their albums. I've seen them live two times. They are a great band.

But .... I honestly just don't see them as a metal band. Sure they have metal and hard rock elements. Heck, they even have solos on their newer stuff.

But to me - Disturbed is an alternative metal band. Not a true metal or hard rock band. They are a hybrid. Not actual metal - or hard rock.

I'm not starting this thread to argue, but just to have a discussion about this.


So ... what's your take?


Also, are you a fan of the band?

No. Definitely more what you said instead. But this thread will probably turn the same the rest of the like-minded threads do so enjoy it while it lasts.

Maybe not just straight up "metal", but definitely some form of it. Their early stuff is kind of nu metal-y, while their last two albums have a more alternative feel. Love the band though, no matter what you call em.

No way Disturbed are a true metal band. Is your friend really suggesting that?

Now, there's no reason they can't join the "metal" table; they just can't sit near the dudes wearing leather and bullet belts.

Schbopo wrote:

Maybe not just straight up "metal", but definitely some form of it. Their early stuff is kind of nu metal-y, while their last two albums have a more alternative feel. Love the band though, no matter what you call em.

I totally agree.

Their first two are more nu metal.

Their last two are more alternative metal.

Thanks for confirming this. As I was starting to think I was just 'missing' something.

Eyesore wrote:

No way Disturbed are a true metal band. Is your friend really suggesting that?

Now, there's no reason they can't join the "metal" table; they just can't sit near the dudes wearing leather and bullet belts.

I agree. Yes, he's a very cool person - and usually I agree with him on most things.

But I just could not believe he saw Disturbed as an actual 'metal' band. I didn't argue with him. But I certainly don't agree.

I consider them a form of metal... Not pure but nonetheless metal.

Troublezone wrote:

I consider them a form of metal... Not pure but nonetheless metal.

Same here.

But to call them a traditional metal band to me is just a stretch.

What the feck is a "Traditional Metal" band?

rattpoison wrote:

What the feck is a "Traditional Metal" band?

Bands like Judas Priest, Iron Maiden, Saxon, etc.

It was more a rhetorical question.

They are "metallish" IMO. I have no problem with seating Disturbed at the "kiddie's Metal Table". Hell, I might even grant them a seat at the "Big Boy's Metal Table".

Disturbed doesn't even consider themselves metal. I once read an interview with David Draiman where he said he doesn't want the band labeled as metal and considers the group to be hard rock.

The first album is nu-metal, IMO. I never bothered with them after that, but I've heard they keep getting better and better.

I really dont care how youd classify them I think that it does has its place but too much emphasis IMO, having said that, No I am not a fan but my eldest stepson loves them

To me, "hard rock" is AC/DC, Rolling Stones, U2, and newer bands like Buckcherry and Beautiful Creatures, etc.

By that standard, Disturbed is much more metal. Disagree with my standard if you want but that's how I see it.

I consider Disturbed a metal band not like Judas Priest but a metal band.

manny wrote:

I consider Disturbed a metal band not like Judas Priest but a metal band.

Id pick disturbed over Judas Priest any day of the week

Addy wrote:

manny wrote:

I consider Disturbed a metal band not like Judas Priest but a metal band.

Id pick disturbed over Judas Priest any day of the week

Troublezone wrote:

Addy wrote:

manny wrote:

I consider Disturbed a metal band not like Judas Priest but a metal band.

Id pick disturbed over Judas Priest any day of the week

X100

You guys must not pay attention much cuz I Can't stand Judas Priest x 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

tohostudios wrote:

To me, "hard rock" is AC/DC, Rolling Stones, U2, and newer bands like Buckcherry and Beautiful Creatures, etc.

By that standard, Disturbed is much more metal. Disagree with my standard if you want but that's how I see it.

Yeah, but there has to be some way to classify the huge glut of the samey-sounding grunge influenced stuff that is all over any 'modern rock' station you turn on nowadays. I hear all the bands using these huge metal distortion settings....and for what? Open chords under the goateed singer while all cymbals are hit at once...Much ado about nothing.........and Disturbed does retain some of that sound in many ways although they are now more streamlined and melodic, guitarwise.....which is really the main reason why you could put the 'alterna-metal' tag on some of their stuff..............I guess we could call things like that nu-hard rock? It was actually bothering me the other day. I wanted to really find out where all of it has came from. Different people could say Creed, Nirvana, and "thebandthatshallneverbementionedagain", maybe it's a mix of all three....hm.

Did he actually use the term "traditional"? If he did, then he probably hasn't listened to much traditional metal. Or did he just call them a "metal" band?

You brought up Iron Maiden and Saxon. Is Necrophagist a metal band? Yes. Do they sound at all like Saxon? No.

Yes, Disturbed are a metal band. Just like Tool and SOAD are metal bands, so is Disturbed. They are alternative metal. That is a form of metal, even though it sounds almost nothing like Maiden or Saxon.

but Necrophagist has a lot more in common with the more 'adult' feelings and aspects of the other bands, the seriousness and intensity, and obviously the instrumentation is more in tune with the guitar being proficient both in presence and technique...and the instrumentation being tight...I mean, that's not to say that metal bands can't swing, metal bands can swing, but when you swing too much, it just naturally loses the militant feel that heavy metal of all forms back to the beginning is known for, it starts to roll more than it rocks, and a lot of those alterna metal bands do that as well as eschew the guitar needed to effectively link backwards...

Don't know enough about Disturbed to make the call one way or the other. What little I've heard from'em doesn't float my boat one iota though, for whatever that's worth.

In a word, No. But then again I hate Disturbed.