Heavy Metal

I hate to sound generic, but in thinking about the description of heavy metal, I came across one that I whole-heartedly agree with. It was from wikipedia.


Heavy metal (often referred to simply as metal) is a genre of rock music that developed in the late 1960s and early 1970s, largely in the United Kingdom and the United States. With roots in blues rock and psychedelic rock, the bands that created heavy metal developed a thick, massive sound, characterized by highly amplified distortion, extended guitar solos, emphatic beats, and overall loudness. Heavy metal lyrics and performance styles are generally associated with masculinity and machismo.
The first heavy metal bands such as Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath and Deep Purple attracted large audiences, though they were often critically reviled, a status common throughout the history of the genre. In the mid-1970s Judas Priest helped spur the genre's evolution by discarding much of its blues influence; Motörhead introduced a punk rock sensibility and an increasing emphasis on speed. Bands in the New Wave of British Heavy Metal such as Iron Maiden followed in a similar vein. Before the end of the decade, heavy metal had attracted a worldwide following of fans known as "metalheads" or "headbangers".
In the 1980s, glam metal became a major commercial force with groups like Mötley Crüe and Poison. Underground scenes produced an array of more extreme, aggressive styles: thrash metal broke into the mainstream with bands such as Metallica, Megadeth, Slayer, and Anthrax, while other styles like death metal and black metal remain subcultural phenomena. Since the mid-1990s, popular styles such as nu metal, which often incorporates elements of grunge and hip hop; and metalcore, which blends extreme metal with hardcore punk, have further expanded the definition of the genre.

Troublezone wrote:

Power chords, catchy riffs, crunchy distortion, epic lead guitar, thumping bass and hard hitting drums.

I agree.

DallasBlack wrote:

}{Iron~Maiden~}{ wrote:

Ok, on another note, what crosses the line and makes something not heavy metal and just "hard rock"?

Ult can answer this one.

No I can't. Anyone else wanna take a crack at it?

My curiosity in starting this discussion had nothing to do with past 70's hard rock/heavy metal discussions, but rather all the newer bands that are labeled heavy metal that to me are missing key ingredients to be labeled as such. It seems that currently most pop has distortion, so people will label it metal.

In your opinions, would this be considered heavy metal"


Note that I am not saying this is BAD music. It's not a criticism of the music, just wondering if you would label it heavy metal.

This is such a tough thing to say... in fact, I can't really say. When I hear metal, I know it's metal. When I hear hard rock, I know it's hard rock (or at least, my own definition of it). I don't think I could really describe well what it is that I'm looking for in metal, but I know it when I see/hear it.

Also, I usually judge which genre a band is based on singing style/lyrical themes, but then, I remember saying that a long time ago in one of these threads, and someone replied "What if Slayer wrote a song about rainbows and bunnies?", which I suppose wouldn't change their genre because of the majority of their music being... well, being SLAYER!!, but if all their music were rainbows and bunnies, I guess they would be... bunny metal.

So, yeah, I really don't have much of an answer to these questions, I just wanted to reminisce about threads long past...

Quote :

What if Slayer wrote a song about rainbows and bunnies?

I would totally love to hear a Slayer song about rainbows and bunnies. Imagine the video possibilities.

Rainbows and killer bunnies.

I can't define heavy metal, but I know it when I hear it.

MetalGuy71 wrote:

Rainbows and killer bunnies.

I can't define heavy metal, but I know it when I hear it.

its time for the holy handgrenade of Antioch!!!

exact33 wrote:

MetalGuy71 wrote:

Rainbows and killer bunnies.

I can't define heavy metal, but I know it when I hear it.

its time for the holy handgrenade of Antioch!!!

I know heavy metal when I hear it but only after I count to five.

It's all in the "heaviness to talent ratio"

If a band has a greater heaviness measurement than that of their talent measurement, that band has achieved heavy metal

ultmetal wrote:

DallasBlack wrote:

}{Iron~Maiden~}{ wrote:

Ok, on another note, what crosses the line and makes something not heavy metal and just "hard rock"?

Ult can answer this one.

No I can't. Anyone else wanna take a crack at it?

My curiosity in starting this discussion had nothing to do with past 70's hard rock/heavy metal discussions, but rather all the newer bands that are labeled heavy metal that to me are missing key ingredients to be labeled as such. It seems that currently most pop has distortion, so people will label it metal.

In your opinions, would this be considered heavy metal"


Note that I am not saying this is BAD music. It's not a criticism of the music, just wondering if you would label it heavy metal.

I was just joking , I know you're tired explaining how hard rock and metal are the same. If they don't get it by now, they never will.

No, that is definatly not metal. I'd call it heavy alternative. As you've said in many reviews on NLTM, distorted guitars do not metal make. From what I just read, they used to be a melodic deathcore metal band but changed their sound after losing their vocalist. The reviews I saw on Amazon had several people saying it's not the same band they knew.

tohostudios wrote:

exact33 wrote:

MetalGuy71 wrote:

Rainbows and killer bunnies.

I can't define heavy metal, but I know it when I hear it.

its time for the holy handgrenade of Antioch!!!

I know heavy metal when I hear it but only after I count to five.

Where's Kurt when ya need him?

holydiver97595 wrote:

tohostudios wrote:

exact33 wrote:

MetalGuy71 wrote:

Rainbows and killer bunnies.

I can't define heavy metal, but I know it when I hear it.

its time for the holy handgrenade of Antioch!!!

I know heavy metal when I hear it but only after I count to five.

Where's Kurt when ya need him?

Isn't it three; not five?

On subject: To me, heavy metal makes me want to get up and throw down. I feel unstoppable when I listen to metal. It's loud, crushing, melodic, and whatever the musician wants to make it. I know heavy metal as soon as the guitars go "DUMMMMMMM". When I hear it live it's like my soul itself shakes. Heavy friggin metal \m/

heavy metal is what I decide it is.

holydiver97595 wrote:

tohostudios wrote:

exact33 wrote:

MetalGuy71 wrote:

Rainbows and killer bunnies.

I can't define heavy metal, but I know it when I hear it.

its time for the holy handgrenade of Antioch!!!

I know heavy metal when I hear it but only after I count to five.

Where's Kurt when ya need him?

Right here?

Heavy metal has really branched out and evolved over the years.

Kind of like many of us on the boards ... our tastes have expanded. Well, to me metal kinda did the same thing.

I think a lot of stuff out there nowadays is really metal, even though it might have a more pop foundation.

I mean ... the glam metal of the 80s married metal with pop music of it's day - and not many had trouble labelling it metal.

I know true metal will always be that 'Judas Priest type' sound. But metal is like a living organism. It has to evolve and grow and become something new all the time.

I personally do consider stuff like metalcore and even nu metal ... to be true forms or genres of metal itself.

Just me and my two bit humble opinion though. So take that for what it's worth.

Fat Freddy wrote:

I was originally gonna say "the sound of overgrown adolescents destroying their instruments in a fiery testosterone fueled cataclysm," but decided that sounded too negative.

After thinking it over, I've decided to go with this description after all.

Fat Freddy wrote:

Fat Freddy wrote:

I was originally gonna say "the sound of overgrown adolescents destroying their instruments in a fiery testosterone fueled cataclysm," but decided that sounded too negative.

After thinking it over, I've decided to go with this description after all.

sounds about right to me!

kmorg wrote:

holydiver97595 wrote:

tohostudios wrote:

exact33 wrote:

MetalGuy71 wrote:

Rainbows and killer bunnies.

I can't define heavy metal, but I know it when I hear it.

its time for the holy handgrenade of Antioch!!!

I know heavy metal when I hear it but only after I count to five.

Where's Kurt when ya need him?

Right here?

I was hoping for another quote!

Metallic Blaze wrote:

Heavy metal has really branched out and evolved over the years.

Kind of like many of us on the boards ... our tastes have expanded. Well, to me metal kinda did the same thing.

I think a lot of stuff out there nowadays is really metal, even though it might have a more pop foundation.

I mean ... the glam metal of the 80s married metal with pop music of it's day - and not many had trouble labelling it metal.

I know true metal will always be that 'Judas Priest type' sound. But metal is like a living organism. It has to evolve and grow and become something new all the time.

I personally do consider stuff like metalcore and even nu metal ... to be true forms or genres of metal itself.

Just me and my two bit humble opinion though. So take that for what it's worth.

Consideriong nu-metal to actually be metal is pretty dangerous man. You sure about that?

I don't care if people shun it for only being heavy because they down-tune their guitars. It's the bands that made it low quality IMO. There is lots of potential for anyone to be good, but the bands to me also sound like they are trying too hard to be angry. It's like they want to be awesome, but they just don't know how.....

The_Jayroh wrote:

Consideriong nu-metal to actually be metal is pretty dangerous man.

dangerous? you mean it might cause some crybaby metalhead to throw a tantrum online? that's more silly than it is dangerous.

The_Jayroh wrote:

Metallic Blaze wrote:

Heavy metal has really branched out and evolved over the years.

Kind of like many of us on the boards ... our tastes have expanded. Well, to me metal kinda did the same thing.

I think a lot of stuff out there nowadays is really metal, even though it might have a more pop foundation.

I mean ... the glam metal of the 80s married metal with pop music of it's day - and not many had trouble labelling it metal.

I know true metal will always be that 'Judas Priest type' sound. But metal is like a living organism. It has to evolve and grow and become something new all the time.

I personally do consider stuff like metalcore and even nu metal ... to be true forms or genres of metal itself.

Just me and my two bit humble opinion though. So take that for what it's worth.

Consideriong nu-metal to actually be metal is pretty dangerous man. You sure about that?

I don't care if people shun it for only being heavy because they down-tune their guitars. It's the bands that made it low quality IMO. There is lots of potential for anyone to be good, but the bands to me also sound like they are trying too hard to be angry. It's like they want to be awesome, but they just don't know how.....

It may not be good, we may not like it, and it may just perpetuate a stereotype, but like it or not, nu-metal, metalcore, the NWOAHM, and all the jazz are branches on the metal tree. They may be the diseased ones that should be pruned off before it spreads to the rest of the tree, but they're still on there.

holydiver97595 wrote:

It may not be good, we may not like it, and it may just perpetuate a stereotype, but like it or not, nu-metal, metalcore, the NWOAHM, and all the jazz are branches on the metal tree. They may be the diseased ones that should be pruned off before it spreads to the rest of the tree, but they're still on there.

I agree, they are true branches on the tree of metal. I personally dislike most of the bands in these genres, but to say they are not from the metal tree is just denial of a fact IMHO.

There are a few exceptions too ... I like a few bands in these categories.

mc666 wrote:

The_Jayroh wrote:

Consideriong nu-metal to actually be metal is pretty dangerous man.

dangerous? you mean it might cause some crybaby metalhead to throw a tantrum online? that's more silly than it is dangerous.

Metallic Blaze wrote:

holydiver97595 wrote:

It may not be good, we may not like it, and it may just perpetuate a stereotype, but like it or not, nu-metal, metalcore, the NWOAHM, and all the jazz are branches on the metal tree. They may be the diseased ones that should be pruned off before it spreads to the rest of the tree, but they're still on there.

I agree, they are true branches on the tree of metal. I personally dislike most of the bands in these genres, but to say they are not from the metal tree is just denial of a fact IMHO.

There are a few exceptions too ... I like a few bands in these categories.

True enough; I can honestly say I like some Nu-Metal bands; some of 'em aren't half bad. Same goes with metalcore (especially classic metalcore, where it's literally metal + hardcore punk) and all of the -core varieties. NWOAHM, however, I really just hate pretty much everything I've heard of that genre, not because it's part of that genre, I just don't like the bands' sounds.

See, now if I said this anywhere near the Metal-Archives forums, I'd be banned in a second

Fat Freddy wrote:

Fat Freddy wrote:

I was originally gonna say "the sound of overgrown adolescents destroying their instruments in a fiery testosterone fueled cataclysm," but decided that sounded too negative.

After thinking it over, I've decided to go with this description after all.

says the man with Fur as his avatar!!!