Non-metal bands that actually claimed to be metal?

I agree with Eyesore.

Korn is nu-metal, ie. a sug-genre of metal. Like it or not.

Eyesore wrote:

Korn is metal, whether they or anyone else says they aren't. Call them nu-metal or alt-metal, whatever, they fall under the Metal umbrella.

I disagree, but there was an interesting debate brought up about KoRn on another board I post at when a thread about their new album was released.

It was something about metal magazines in the early to mid 1990s, before KoRn became a household name band. A guy on a board said his friend let him borrow a lot of these magazines. These weren't magazines like Metal Edge (a bit of "true metal", but having a large arena rock/metal and melodic hard rock slant) or Hit Parader (who had some "true metal" but mostly had a grunge/alternative rock slant). These were magazines where the main focus were bands like Sepultura, Overkill, Deicide, Morbid Angel, Slayer, Carcass, etc. And KoRn was right in there with them! They were in just about every one of these magazines in at least one issue. Not only that, but the writers had very positive things to say about them.

Very strange.

I was in college when Korn hit the scene and most of my friends that listened to metal dug that album and had no issues with describing them as heavy metal. I had to review that album for a little fanzine and I thought it was the most boring band I had heard in years, I think I gave it 1 star out of 5. LOL.

To be fair the first one is the only one which approaches something like that too; all the Faith No More fans also liked them, fans of newer (at the time) Sepultura, so they had some kind of metal-ish audience but it was never the dyed-in-the-wools. The first album was bland accidental almost-metal but it wasn't quite as completely retarded as what followed.

A friend of mine on Facebook made the statement, "Judas Priest were just a hard rock band until Painkiller". That's still his opinion.

I don't get the history revisionism that has been going on in the last decade or so when it comes to heavy metal. Some people honestly believe that heavy metal didn't exist until the 80's.

ultmetal wrote:

I don't get the history revisionism that has been going on in the last decade or so when it comes to heavy metal. Some people honestly believe that heavy metal didn't exist until the 80's.

I think some of that is new generations discovering the music and making their own interpretations. There is no arguing that the sound of metal has evolved over the past 40+ years and I think someone that is a teenager right now is going to see it very differently than I did as a teenager in 1982 just discovering Iron Maiden and Judas Priest.

ultmetal wrote:

A friend of mine on Facebook made the statement, "Judas Priest were just a hard rock band until Painkiller". That's still his opinion.

I don't get the history revisionism that has been going on in the last decade or so when it comes to heavy metal. Some people honestly believe that heavy metal didn't exist until the 80's.

I am pretty sure someone will start those posts on HoM again......

Eyesore wrote:

Korn is metal, whether they or anyone else says they aren't. Call them nu-metal or alt-metal, whatever, they fall under the Metal umbrella.

I'll agree with you on that one!

Even when they started out, they were marketed as a metal band... I personal refer to it as shit metal......

Sammy Hagar in his autobiography described the music he made with Montrose and his earlier solo albums as heavy metal, he did not see himself strictly as metal artist but its right there in his book.

Orion Crystal Ice wrote:

To be fair the first one is the only one which approaches something like that too; all the Faith No More fans also liked them, fans of newer (at the time) Sepultura, so they had some kind of metal-ish audience but it was never the dyed-in-the-wools. The first album was bland accidental almost-metal but it wasn't quite as completely retarded as what followed.

I'd say that the first album was the closest they ever came to being a "proper metal" band. It's definitely their heaviest album. Although I'm not a fan of it at all, if I had to pick one album of theirs to listen to, it would easily be that one.

The same guy who said he saw KoRn covered in most magazines he read from the early to mid 1990s that focused almost exclusively on what most true metalheads call "real metal" said from what he's gathered, it was largely metalheads praising them left, right, and center around the time KoRn's debut came out. A lot of the true metalheads seemed to say that it was largely the "suburban whiteboy" types who were fans of them in the beginning.

One of the "true metalheads" that posts on the same board who was in college when KoRn's debut was released said there was definitely truth to a lot of what was said. He said that he understands what he meant by the "metalheads left, right, and center" comment, but it wasn't exactly metalheads, but still, they had a definite metal following to some extent. It was mostly "grey area metal" types and people new to metal that hadn't truly embraced it yet. Strangely, he, too, used the term "dyed in the wool" in his post, as he claimed not too many true metalheads were into KoRn (a bit too far removed from "real metal" for most dyed in the wool metalheads to get into), but does remember at least some metalheads liking them at the time. He said he remembers KoRn getting covered in those magazines being referred to, but added that at least a few of those magazines did have some "letters to the editor" from some people who felt KoRn wasn't right for coverage in the magazines.

Regardless, they both said that the general perception of KoRn by true metal fans was not even close to being as harsh when they started out as it would be a few years later.

ultmetal wrote:

A friend of mine on Facebook made the statement, "Judas Priest were just a hard rock band until Painkiller". That's still his opinion.

I don't get the history revisionism that has been going on in the last decade or so when it comes to heavy metal. Some people honestly believe that heavy metal didn't exist until the 80's.

It's not really revisionism, though; it's evolution. The genres have to evolve; there's just too many different styles out there these days. So a lot what was considered heavy metal in the 1970s and early 1980s would be hard rock today.

I really don't see why so many get upset over those genre shifts. Is it really a big deal that early Priest albums are now considered to be largely hard rock albums?

As for Korn, their debut is a classic in that it changed the musical landscape and ushered in a new era of music. Whether we like it or not, Korn was pretty goddamn original, and they remain so today. You can't discredit that. The issue most people seem to have is that the debut, the album they "blew up" on, is not a great album. But what the album did have, is a handful of great songs, and that's what everyone latched onto. Personally, I don't think they really hit their stride until Issues, which, in my opinion, is a brilliant modern metal album.

Either way, they're a metal band.

Required Fields wrote:

Eyesore wrote:

Korn is metal, whether they or anyone else says they aren't. Call them nu-metal or alt-metal, whatever, they fall under the Metal umbrella.

I disagree, but there was an interesting debate brought up about KoRn on another board I post at when a thread about their new album was released.

It was something about metal magazines in the early to mid 1990s, before KoRn became a household name band. A guy on a board said his friend let him borrow a lot of these magazines. These weren't magazines like Metal Edge (a bit of "true metal", but having a large arena rock/metal and melodic hard rock slant) or Hit Parader (who had some "true metal" but mostly had a grunge/alternative rock slant). These were magazines where the main focus were bands like Sepultura, Overkill, Deicide, Morbid Angel, Slayer, Carcass, etc. And KoRn was right in there with them! They were in just about every one of these magazines in at least one issue. Not only that, but the writers had very positive things to say about them.

Very strange.

That was likely Metal Maniacs (the "true metal" spinoff of Metal Edge).

Eyesore wrote:

ultmetal wrote:

A friend of mine on Facebook made the statement, "Judas Priest were just a hard rock band until Painkiller". That's still his opinion.

I don't get the history revisionism that has been going on in the last decade or so when it comes to heavy metal. Some people honestly believe that heavy metal didn't exist until the 80's.

It's not really revisionism, though; it's evolution. The genres have to evolve; there's just too many different styles out there these days. So a lot what was considered heavy metal in the 1970s and early 1980s would be hard rock today.

I really don't see why so many get upset over those genre shifts. Is it really a big deal that early Priest albums are now considered to be largely hard rock albums?

Elvis Presley & Carl Perkins used to be called "Rock And Roll"...now they're largely considered "Rockabilly"...same dif.

I personally believe in letting people call music whatever they feel it should be labeled.  No thing to me either way.  Call it whatever you like, I say.  Won't affect me in the least.  

I first heard of Korn way back in 94.  They had a lot of hype amongst my metal inclined friends.  "Band that will save metal" type hype.  I first heard them when they opened for Biohazard.  I didn't think they lived up to the praise - but they were pretty original in their approach.  The one album of their's I do enjoy is Follow The Leader.  For some reason I've always dug that album.

A lot of bands got the metal tag solely because that was what the record company thought would sell it.  Nirvana, Alice In Chains, Soundgarden, Stone Temple Pilots (and hell even Pearl Jam played their initial showcases at metal shows) all got tabbed as "metal" at first.  The northwest scene in the 80's was considered the future of "metal".  Once that became a dirty word commercially to the labels suddenly they had a new label for these bands.  

Say what you will about Fred Durst, but I always thought it was a smart move on his part to pimp LB out as either the "sickest metal band ever" or "the sickest hip-hop band ever" depending on whatever media he was talking with.

Hadley wrote:

Required Fields wrote:

Eyesore wrote:

Korn is metal, whether they or anyone else says they aren't. Call them nu-metal or alt-metal, whatever, they fall under the Metal umbrella.

I disagree, but there was an interesting debate brought up about KoRn on another board I post at when a thread about their new album was released.

It was something about metal magazines in the early to mid 1990s, before KoRn became a household name band. A guy on a board said his friend let him borrow a lot of these magazines. These weren't magazines like Metal Edge (a bit of "true metal", but having a large arena rock/metal and melodic hard rock slant) or Hit Parader (who had some "true metal" but mostly had a grunge/alternative rock slant). These were magazines where the main focus were bands like Sepultura, Overkill, Deicide, Morbid Angel, Slayer, Carcass, etc. And KoRn was right in there with them! They were in just about every one of these magazines in at least one issue. Not only that, but the writers had very positive things to say about them.

Very strange.

That was likely Metal Maniacs (the "true metal" spinoff of Metal Edge).

There were multiple ones. He didn't name any of the magazines, but yeah, Metal Maniacs, it goes without saying, would have been one of them, as they were the best known predominantly "true metal" magazine at the time.

Eivis Presley, The King of Rockabilly!  

Judas Priest, the godfathers of hard rock!  

 

ultmetal wrote:

Eivis Presley, The King of Rockabilly!  

Judas Priest, the godfathers of hard rock!  

 

I'm just saying...right or wrong, it's what happens.

I use to get hung up on labels. Now it's either music I like or don't like. No labels.

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

ultmetal wrote:

Eivis Presley, The King of Rockabilly!  

Judas Priest, the godfathers of hard rock!  

 

I'm just saying...right or wrong, it's what happens.

I know what you are saying. I'm just poking fun.  

It's funny to say it's just evolution of sound. So the early phones aren't really phones because they've changed?  

jstate wrote:

I personally believe in letting people call music whatever they feel it should be labeled.  No thing to me either way.  Call it whatever you like, I say.  Won't affect me in the least.  

I first heard of Korn way back in 94.  They had a lot of hype amongst my metal inclined friends.  "Band that will save metal" type hype.  I first heard them when they opened for Biohazard.  I didn't think they lived up to the praise - but they were pretty original in their approach.  The one album of their's I do enjoy is Follow The Leader.  For some reason I've always dug that album.

A lot of bands got the metal tag solely because that was what the record company thought would sell it.  Nirvana, Alice In Chains, Soundgarden, Stone Temple Pilots (and hell even Pearl Jam played their initial showcases at metal shows) all got tabbed as "metal" at first.  The northwest scene in the 80's was considered the future of "metal".  Once that became a dirty word commercially to the labels suddenly they had a new label for these bands.  

Say what you will about Fred Durst, but I always thought it was a smart move on his part to pimp LB out as either the "sickest metal band ever" or "the sickest hip-hop band ever" depending on whatever media he was talking with.

Well, if he called his band "the sickest metal band ever" and was being serious, he belongs on the list. But I believe he was joking.

I sure hope he was.

"Heavy metal" is also not a quality of measure. I hear a lot of: "they're not metal, they're shit". So what? 90% of metal is probably shit. It doesn't mean it's suddenly hardcore or alternative rock, if you don't like it. That's why you choose to not listen to but a small fraction of metal bands (how many are there around the world? 500,000? A million?).

Same elitism is even worse among prog fans. "Oh this is not progressive rock, it's not complex or intelligent or groundbreaking enough. And it must have superior songwriting and lyrics.". That's just BS. If I slap my butt cheek in tune to Genesis' White Mountain, I am playing prog rock, and there's nothing intelligent or superior about it.

I would not label Korn as metal but rather as rock. Just because it has distorted guitars and dbl bass drumming and being heavy does not make a band metal. If that;s the case that you define as metal, then so is Journey and so is Travis Tritt.

I think alot of AOR artist might fall in this thread...I wouldn't consider Aldo Nova, Foreigner, Boston, cheap trick, Pat Benatar, Joan Jett or even Lita ford metal but they have referred to themselves as that and the magazines and record stores call them metal....
...............
What about Led Zeppelin and Hendrix...I wouldn't call either of them metal even though they influenced metal bands... I see both of them as Heavy Blues/hard Rock artist...