Possibly everything you could want to know about metal.....and then some

[Legendaryking6]

Well I decided to do a search on Wikipedia about heavy metal just for sh*ts and giggles, and I found this very informing article about the genre- its history, important figures, subgenres, and current state, as well as a ton of other usefull info and trivia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_metal_music

The interesting part is that it doesn't mention Disturbed for some reason.

[schwa.]

The interesting part is that it doesn't mention Disturbed for some reason.

IMO, Disturbed isn't really "metal", per se, but more like hard rock.

[Cytosine]

Well, it depends your decision in terms of their genre, but I think that they were originally classified as nu metal, which is mentioned on that page, so I dunno.

[Legendaryking6]

Disturbed's last 2 albums are more metal than anything else. Their 1st 2 would be more of a combo of new wave and hard rock/metal.

[Spiner202]

They're very Nu-metal. If you are looking for a definition of Metal, you definately don't look to Disturbed (no offense to them).

Disturbed's last 2 albums are more metal than anything else. Their 1st 2 would be more of a combo of new wave and hard rock/metal.
10K fists is very generic Nu-metal (still good though), but Indestructible is a step in the right direction towards becoming more "metal".

As for the article, I read that all the time, but honestly, it's really nothing new. That's kind of what Wikipedia is for...

[Legendaryking6]

I haven't seen it before and I found that it basically answers any question about Metal someone could ask, so I figured I'd post it here.

[Doctor Gonzo]

Well, Disturbed are no longer "nu metal", because they don't really use any of the techno stuff that they used to and they have added shredding guitar solos, which is never used in nu metal. Nu metal is about having certain rap influences and stuff involved with the beats and what not.

[Legendaryking6]

Which is why I question why Godsmack are classified as such. I never understood why they're called nu-metal, as they don't use any rap-ish lyrics or singing styles, and they hardly use any techno-ish themes. The only true Nu-Metal band left is Korn.

[Dark Link112]

ehhh. Would the Untitled album still count as nu metal? It's awfully softer than their older stuff. the Knot used to be considered nu metal, but they really kinda branched off from it. Still great band though! Anyways, alot of people think that metal is only metal unless it has screaming. which is crap. I'd still consider Disturbed metal. But idk. most rock bands nowadays get lumped into "alternative" so its hard to tell sometimes.

Oh, and dont forget Mudvayne. They're still nu metal-ish...

[Doctor Gonzo]

Linkin Park are probably the most popular nu-metal act even though they get lumped with alternative, Mudvayne are pretty nu-metal, Korn are definitely nu-metal, Static-X are pretty nu-metal but have the industrial flavor. I hear Limp Bizkit is coming out with a new album, so... yeah, I'd say it's still around. Disturbed and Godsmack are definitely NOT nu-metal. Godsmack was classified as such, I'd say, because they also lacked the solos of the 80's metal bands, it was a new kind of metal more about aggression and anger, I think that's mostly where it comes from.

The term was coined for Coal Chamber, as a matter of fact, which they have only done one thing remotely rap that I have ever heard and that was "Amir of the Desert" or whatever that song was called from '97s self-titled album. I miss Coal Chamber.

[Spiner202]

Anyways, alot of people think that metal is only metal unless it has screaming.
This isn't true at all. Thrash Metal doesn't have screaming all of the time and is probably the most popular genre after Death Metal. Power Metal is also very popular in Europe and it almost never has screaming. And of course where would we be without Sabbath, Dio, Judas Priest, etc.

Of course if you are referring to the general public, then yes, but if you are talking about Metalheads then not really.

[AllThingsEqual]

This thread shows some horrible knowledge about metal. I love how the some are like "TROO METAL RULS!!!!!!"

[Legendaryking6]

We're not debating what is "tr00" metal, ATE. We're debating why some bands were improperly labeled as different subgenres of metal. No matter what anyone says, Nu-Metal is still real metal, as is the rest of it, as it's a METAL SUBGENRE. Christ, it even has metal in the name.

Now if we were discussing, say, Led Zepplin or AC/DC being metal, then yes, we'd be debating what is true metal (which they both are not and have never been. At most, they're hard rock).

[InverT]

I think that the main reason for the discrepancies concerning older metal bands (which I would include ACDC and Led Zep in) is that the definition of metal has undeniably changed and evolved throughout the decades. Bands like Slipknot and Mudvayne wouldn't have come without Metallica and Megadeth before them paving the way for thrash and speed metal, and Sabbath and Priest before them bringing in the heavy sound that is now present most all metal. Baby steps, guys. What was metal back then isn't necessarily metal now.

[Powerslave]

What was metal back then isn't necessarily metal now.

i wouldn't agree with that. what was metal then is metal now. what was heavy then, is not even close to being so now.

[InverT]

Ah point well taken. I revise my earlier statment

[Civil Disobedient]

Disturbed and Godsmack are Nu-Metal bands. Fact.

[Two Angels And A Dream]

Godsmack were a Nu Metal band but they've moved away from that. I'd just say they were hard rock now.

[Cytosine]

I don't know much about Godsmack, but I'd personally say that that is what Disturbed have done. Songs like Down With The Sickness are quite Nu Metal, but their latest two albums are more on the Hard Rock/Metal side.

[Civil Disobedient]

If I put a flower on a turd, it's still a turd. Nu-metal is as nu-metal does, regardless of phony "new direction"s spurred by changes in the commercial climate.

[Cytosine]

So you're saying bands can never change genre?

[Dan]

No, he said that the aforementioned bands are still essentially writing music in the same genre with various small changes that work to somewhat differentiate it from previous works.

[MetalheadSiege]

I understand the classification of thrash, Death, and Black metal... however when people break off and start creating sub-genre's for a sub-genre, I have to sit back and wonder is there really a just reason for the lable? Like Nu-Metal (I always hated that tag) in the 2000's, there are now bands being called Metal-core and all it does is serve to make them "the fad" and then will be tossed to the side whenever that genre has lost it's luster.

[Bird Flu]

David Draiman (Lead singer of Disturbed) said:“We probably have too much melody going on or we’re not quite as turbulent or caustic. While I really love that type of music [heavy metal], it’s not what we try to do. If we have to place things in context, we’re more hard rock than heavy metal these days.”

[Cytosine]

No, he said that the aforementioned bands are still essentially writing music in the same genre with various small changes that work to somewhat differentiate it from previous works.

Yes, but if a natural progression of a band/combination of a lot of these small changes ends up making them write music in a different genre, is that still just 'a turd with a flower on it'?

[The JoZ]

1) I don't give a flying f*ck what certain people say, even using the term "Nu Metal" is stupid, because there isn't even any agreement on what characteristics actually make a band "Nu Metal" or not.

2) Godsmack and Disturbed are more or less just hard rock bands, and, aside from the solos, even then which aren't as technical as actual metal bands' solos, don't really have anything metal about them.

3) No wiki article, or, really, any article anywhere could really tell anyone "everything you want to know about metal" and especially not "then some". In my years posting on boards with nothing but rock and metal fans, there is only some agreement about metal bands, sub-genres, and sub-sub genres. To think that anyone, anywhere, could come up with any compendium of knowledge about this ever-changing, ever-disputed genre of music is preposterous.

[Civil Disobedient]

The JoZ is Nu-Metal embodied.

[Bird Flu]

This thread should just be renamed "Disturbed. Nu Metal?"

[Civil Disobedient]

With the first post containing only the word "DUH".

[The JoZ]

The JoZ is Nu-Metal embodied.

What the f*ck does that even mean? Do you even read the words that you type?

Seriously, you exist in this forum only to troll people about music.

You run your mouth constantly about what "Nu Metal" is, but you don't even define it. You want to give people sh*t about something, back it up with more than this bullsh*t snark and arrogance that you fling around here.

Nu Metal is a stupid buzzword initiated by metal elitist hacks who feel the need to talk down to anyone who doesn't share their beloved musical tastes.

This thread really didn't even need to be started, but seeing who started the thread, I am not surprised it was.

[Civil Disobedient]

I've already defined Nu Metal, incase you missed it. People like you are Nu Metal. bands like Disturbed are Nu Metal. It's not a mere "buzzword initiated by metal elitist hacks", it was an entire regrettable musical 'movement' that's been and gone, its former truest disciples shunning the term due to its modern negative connotations.

It's funny how you accuse me of trolling, yet your language is clearly an attack on me. Guffaw.

[Spiner202]

I think he wants you to give a musical description of Nu-metal. Not name bands (and for some reason people) that are Nu-metal.

I think what you were trying to say earlier is that though the bands are changing, the genre itself is progressing trying to appeal to what's popular. In the beginning of the decade, Nu-metal was based in a more Rap based around heavy riffs but now it's progressed to a hard rock/heavy metal sound, which is why a lot of these bands are including solos now.

[Cytosine]

CD, if nu metal has 'been and gone', why do you keep saying bands around now belong to the genre? Surely that implies that bands stopped playing it?

[Spiner202]

CD, if nu metal has 'been and gone', why do you keep saying bands around now belong to the genre? Surely that implies that bands stopped playing it?

I think he's referring to the popularity of it. Just like Hair metal has been and gone, but there are still bands playing it. I don't think bands will ever stop playing a genre of music, it just becomes less/more popular.

[Bird Flu]

I think he's referring to the popularity of it. Just like Hair metal has been and gone, but there are still bands playing it. I don't think bands will ever stop playing a genre of music, it just becomes less/more popular.

and thank GOD hair metal's gone. In my opinion, it's horrid.

[Spiner202]

I used it as an example because I love it :D. Can't go wrong with some Skid Row or Autograph.

I really don't know anyone that likes it, but I find it so addictive!

[Bird Flu]

IMO it's entertaining enough, but usually substanceless. If Guns n' Roses counts, I'm down with that.

[Typhon]

Why does it even matter what a group is classified as?

Why not just find what you like without trying to over classify what something is?

Sure, there is a difference between Ludacris and Stone Sour...

But what really is the major difference between one heavy rock band from another? Sure there are certain tones, time signatures, and rhythms of course, but the core of it all is related to each other in way that is disgusting to try to pick it apart to death...

I say just listen to what you like and call it music...

[Bird Flu]

That's wonderful logic, Typhon, but the problem is:
This is the internet. Everybody's going to argue about everything. It's not the most productive thing, but it's fun and is something to talk about.

[Cytosine]

Also, it can help when describing your music tastes. For example, I might talk to a non-metalhead and say 'I like Metallica, Megadeth and Slayer'. They could have no idea who those bands were. However, if I said 'I like metal, especially thrash', not only would they be more likely to understand, but it'd be a lot easier to find out what that sounded like/meant/whatever.

[Typhon]

Also, it can help when describing your music tastes. For example, I might talk to a non-metalhead and say 'I like Metallica, Megadeth and Slayer'. They could have no idea who those bands were. However, if I said 'I like metal, especially thrash', not only would they be more likely to understand, but it'd be a lot easier to find out what that sounded like/meant/whatever.


Well, my only problem with that, and most of this over labeling argument stems from, is that a band could change their genre between a couple songs from a single album. So intead of making things easier to undersatnd, you almost complicate it...

For example, you could call Metallica thrash metal (heavy metal, whatever), but if you told your friend to listen to them because they have a very heavy sound and he stumbled on Nothing Else Matters instead of Master of Puppets (let's say as if you had intended)… there would certainly be a case of mistaken identity... however, it would be harder for anyone to argue if you told your friend that Metallica is simply hard rock (since all their music has a close sense of it)...

Just a thought…

[Civil Disobedient]

Labels exist to describe music. This may shock you, but the only way to really know what something sounds like is to hear it. Writing down words to attempt to describe the sounds is necessary either to target those who would become interested by the description itself, or those who relate the description to other sounds they have heard before, and enjoyed. It is the basis of the entire music journalism field, the reason why critics exist, and why anyone who says "genre names r dumb whocarez" should take a look at themselves.

[Typhon]

Labels exist to describe music. It is the basis of the entire music journalism field, the reason why critics exist, and why anyone who says "genre names r dumb whocarez" should take a look at themselves.

I really have no idea what you're trying to say... or maybe you have no idea what I'm trying to say...

In any case, labels are over used to the point where they are counter productive. Who is to say what "heavy" metal or "thrash" metal or "death" metal really is? Or any other sub genre for that matter...


Besides that, anyone who uses a music critic as thier basis for what is "good" or "bad" has a poor sense of integrity... or needs someone to tell them what they like, which is a flawed sense of idenity...


Listen to what you like and you don't have to worry what another person says or feels about your personal music taste..