Non-metal bands that actually claimed to be metal?

Lurideath wrote:

Bon Jovi is a prime example. That 1st album was a metal album ....

 

She's a little runaway is just a CRUSHINGLY HEAVY SONIC ASSAULT!   

I think Bon Jovi fits the glam metal bill. At least early on in their careers.

And like with nu-metal, the tag "metal" is not a measure of quality. Being metal doesn't mean it's good, or that you have to like it.

The one thing I would think everyone can agree on, is that NWOBHM bands are, by definition, metal.

And Axl Rose is bad pop music.

Lurideath wrote:

I think a LOT of bands started out as metal and then drifted off from it.
Bon Jovi is a prime example. That 1st album was a metal album but after that they were just a hard rock band and now play rockfish country music.

Aerosmyth is also another example. They too were a metal band but went very commercial and poppy!

So yeah some bands were "metal"! To say some of them are now is wrong!!

Neither of these bands were metal. Ever.
Even though I understand how Aerosmith could have been perceived as such by some people in the '70s, and the first Bon Jovi album indeed had some heaviness to it that makes me understand how someone could have mistook then for a metal band, despite them actually playing hard rock/AOR.

S.D. wrote:

Lurideath wrote:

Bon Jovi is a prime example. That 1st album was a metal album ....

 

She's a little runaway is just a CRUSHINGLY HEAVY SONIC ASSAULT!    

Lol this.

Maybe we should start seeing music the way we see movies.

Night of the Living Dead (B&W) isn't anything particularly revelatory or frightening now - in fact, they had to remake and sequelize it a few times to get it up to speed - but it made people crap their pants when it was new.

Likewise, Black Sabbath may not be Prostitute Disfigurement, but in their day, they were received in the same way.

I say, call it all metal (even Aerosmith) and, if you really want to, talk about the eras of metal that really appealed to your particular sensibilities. We don't call horror movies chick flicks because they lack CG of heads exploding, but that's pretty rote and standard by this point. Why should metal be judged by the presence or lack of loudness war mastering, blast beats, and lyrics about killing your mom with a potted plant?

Avenged sevenfold are one of the bands which I never really considered to be metal.

That was until I bought hail to the king, a real metal masterpiece and the best metal cd for 2014 IMO.

Right krokus?

Runicen wrote:

Maybe we should start seeing music the way we see movies.  

Night of the Living Dead (B&W) isn't anything particularly revelatory or frightening now - in fact, they had to remake and sequelize it a few times to get it up to speed - but it made people crap their pants when it was new.  

Likewise, Black Sabbath may not be Prostitute Disfigurement, but in their day, they were received in the same way.

I say, call it all metal (even Aerosmith) and, if you really want to, talk about the eras of metal that really appealed to your particular sensibilities.  We don't call horror movies chick flicks because they lack CG of heads exploding, but that's pretty rote and standard by this point. Why should metal be judged by the presence or lack of loudness war mastering, blast beats, and lyrics about killing your mom with a potted plant?

  

Runicen has the right idea. Props.

I'm gonna employ some brutal honesty here: this debate is tired and has dominated the board way too much during my time here. It's not like I'm angry about it; I just think it would be a healthy move to stop diving into genre wars so much. There's so much more to explore than a topic that has such a narrow window of reference. It's becoming repetitive. Don't we know each other's final statement on this by now?

Now that that's settled, let's get back to Geoff Tate.   

You can always ignore a thread that doesn't interest you any longer. This seems to be a thread that refuses to die.

007 wrote:

You can always ignore a thread that doesn't interest you any longer. This seems to be a thread that refuses to die.

I know, I'm just making the suggestion for everyone's sake, not just mine. 'Tis an immortal topic indeed.

Taken another way, let's examine the practical side here...

I used to divide and sub-divide genres in my iTunes library to death - mostly to be funny (Rammstein was "Stompy German Metal" at one point). I realized that it was kind of self-defeating because I couldn't use the tags to create interesting shuffles.

Once I started taking more or less anything that was kind of "rock" and labelled it "rock" and took everything "metal" and labelled it "metal," it both gave me a pretty good guarantee that I'd get what I wanted when I hit "shuffle," and that I'd get some curves thrown in to boot because both tags follow really wide range of styles and have a lot of diversity. Ditto for jazz, which is really wild if you move from old 50s stuff into fusion and onward.

Just makes for a richer stew as far as I'm concerned.

And if this topic is immortal, does that make it the Kurgan?

Queensryche vs. Genre Wars: There can only be one.   

My whole outlook on this topic is simple. If you think it's "metal" that's ok. Who am I to tell you otherwise? If someone wants to call Bullet for my Valentine, "metal" RIGHT ON!! There is no right or wrong answer. If Nickelback is heavy to someone **This Means War or Side of a Bullet** then it's HEAVY!!!

corplhicks wrote:

Queensryche vs. Genre Wars: There can only be one.   

Wait... Does that make Geoff the Highlander?

No, he's bald... I guess this thread is the Highlander and GT is the Kurgan.

That certainly explains a lot - not least of all Vest's voice of late *ba bum tsh*.   

Runicen wrote:

corplhicks wrote:

Queensryche vs. Genre Wars: There can only be one.   

Wait...  Does that make Geoff the Highlander?

No, he's bald...  I guess this thread is the Highlander and GT is the Kurgan.  

That certainly explains a lot - not least of all Vest's voice of late *ba bum tsh*.    

  That came together so well lol.