Does metal have three sides?

To balance all this "let's all listen to every kind of metal" hippie crap: since when is it bad to know what you like? And to know what you don't like?

Obviously you need to be able to tolerate all kinds of music, since you're not the only person in the world. But if you know YOU only like dark symphonic Nordic viking metal (but not pagan viking metal) with female vocals made between 1997 to 2002, recorded by Terje Refsnes, specifically WITHOUT keyboards, but WITH accordion solos, in triple time. I say, good for you. You've got it figured out. Who's to say you're wrong?

I would say depending on the quantity of accordion solos, that person's emotional range may span from vegetable to psychotic.

My collection runs from The Beatles to Dream Theater to Sarah McLachlan to Iron Maiden to U2 to Mr. Big to Johnny Cash to The Clash to Bob Dylan to Alice In Chains to Neil Young to King's X. I like whatever I like...whatever.

In my mind it is two sided. Melodic and extreme. All the groove, industrial, nu, and -core subgenres aren't true metal and are thusly discarded. I listen to everything from AC/DC to Emperor, so that about covers it.

What makes Emperor "true" but Slipknot "untrue"?

One man's "tr00" is another man's "untr00."

this is something I posted in another thread, a theory-in-practice of metal/non-metal...just food for thought...if there is something better then definitely feel free to share :p

Quote :

typically, regardless of sub-genre, we expect at least one of these two things in metal: 1. that musically it utilizes higher skill and/or maturity on all instruments, the guitars especially, and that they are played with intensity of style and tone to match 2. that mood-wise/lyrically/in song structuring, it offers an escape and/or catharsis not oft found in other styles of rock music. Explicitly gory death metal eschews a lot of the lyrical maturity, obviously, but has musicianship, mood, and heaviness that rips your head off. Doom metal may not be 'complex' like in the first example, but is still played with maturity, skill, majesty. When you talk about Running Wild, old Nightwish, Accept, etc, it's easy to pinpoint all these qualities, despite each band sounding different. The majority of the groove/core stuff, on the other hand, abandons all of those qualities for a lot of qualities more commonly found in hip hop and hardcore. It's not merely infused; the balance is way off. Labyrinth incorporates electronic influences in their music and it is seamlessly integrated; they don't suddenly become Project Pitchfork because there's a drum machine under a single guitar line.

It seems with things like this, the metal title is a heralded one to go after. There must be a reason for that. Which leads me to this: if everything is metal, nothing can be metal. It's not merely semantics....it's right there in the music.

Quote :

that musically it utilizes higher skill and/or maturity on all instruments

Higher skill and maturity compared to what? There are definitely styles of music more complex and technically challenging than metal.

Andy wrote:

In my mind it is two sided. Melodic and extreme. All the groove, industrial, nu, and -core subgenres aren't true metal and are thusly discarded. I listen to everything from AC/DC to Emperor, so that about covers it.

Yeah, AC/DC's metal, and Pantera isn't.

As I've said before, discussion of "true metal" is just ludicrous. There is no "Rule Book" for what is and isn't metal.

ive said this before, but i think its worth saying again. so people can roll their eyes, naturally. there are things that can be referenced to construct mutually agreeable definitions based on more than mere popularity of consent. saying "there is no true metal" is valid in the way saying "there is no true anything" is, though. if anything is true, "true metal" is true---you just have to choose what method of defining youre going to employ, and there are historical, instrumental, compositional, and other determining factors that can elevate methods beyond mere cultural or aesthetic preference to being philosophically coherent artistic movements. sometimes the lines are fuzzy, but there are lines.

S.D. wrote:

Quote :

that musically it utilizes higher skill and/or maturity on all instruments

Higher skill and maturity compared to what? There are definitely styles of music more complex and technically challenging than metal.

au contraire, check post again. it's just one of different ingredients put *together*. there is jazz which can utilize more complex manners of composition, bluegrass players who 'shred' more, but ALL the pieces of the puzzle have to be there. It isn't about any one of them all on it's own.

S.D. wrote:

As I've said before, discussion of "true metal" is just ludicrous. There is no "Rule Book" for what is and isn't metal.

yep. Metal is in the ear of the beholder.