Written by Marcel Hubregtse on 12.11.2008 at 02:25

Written by Author on 12.11.2008 at 00:51


I get what you're saying about newbs to metal (like myself ) not really understanding which bands would qualify as "true metal" in the opinions of experienced metalheads. You have to understand though, that true metal isn't even a real term.

Well, it actually is an existing term which is used quite often (especially in Europe in a country such as Germany)

Like Hellish Star pointed out a couple of posts earlier:

1. True Metal as a kind of genre for Metal bands that keep the spirit of the eighties metal movement alive. Bands like Helstar, Jag Panzer, Anvil, Nasty Savage, Attacker, Overlorde, Cloven Hoof, Deadly Blessing and less 'famous' bands like Vortex, Defender,... but also new bands who play in vein of these bands like Artic Flame, Axehammer, Heathendom, Portrait etc... Especially in tradional "eighties" styles you will find these bands (Heavy Metal, US (power) metal and Thrash). Every year there are several festivals with bands like these; most famous is the KEEP IT TRUE festival in Germany (next saturday there's another edition with Flotsam & Jetsam, Nasty Savage, Girlschool, Evil, Tokyo Blade,...). Meanwhile also in Death and Black Metal we know TRUE Metal bands but their spirits are lying elswhere.

Hence a festival such as Keep It True

Hmm, slightly off topic but I didn't know Tokyo Blade were still together...sometimes its hard to keep track of those lesser known NWOBHM bands (for example, tracking down the complete member list with years for Tygers Of Pan Tang was hell).

Written by totaliteraliter on 12.11.2008 at 23:46

Written by Author on 12.11.2008 at 23:23
No one labels their favourite bands as true metal? That's a pretty dumb statment which could be easily proven wrong by taking look at the attitudes of metalheads.

I didn't make that statement. Try reading my post again, then have another go at replying if you wish.

Sorry for the late reply i havent been on in a bit, but you said "People don't use such terms as "true metal" or "good music" as an excuse to feel good about bands they like (that barely even makes sense)..."

Close enough to what I said lol; I guess I just don't see the point of definitions like true and false metal which were deliberatly cooked up to make some styles of metal seem superior to others. Make no mistake, I love styles like Thrash and NWOBHM much more then Alternative Metal but I still wouldn't use a term like that; once again it's just pointless in my opinion.

Written by Author on 23.11.2008 at 19:02

Written by totaliteraliter on 12.11.2008 at 23:46

Written by Author on 12.11.2008 at 23:23
No one labels their favourite bands as true metal? That's a pretty dumb statment which could be easily proven wrong by taking look at the attitudes of metalheads.

I didn't make that statement. Try reading my post again, then have another go at replying if you wish.

Sorry for the late reply i havent been on in a bit, but you said "People don't use such terms as "true metal" or "good music" as an excuse to feel good about bands they like (that barely even makes sense)..."

Close enough to what I said lol; I guess I just don't see the point of definitions like true and false metal which were deliberatly cooked up to make some styles of metal seem superior to others. Make no mistake, I love styles like Thrash and NWOBHM much more then Alternative Metal but I still wouldn't use a term like that; once again it's just pointless in my opinion.

Your slightly incoherent ramblings here have done little to clarify the situation. But I think we've come closer to the root of your misunderstanding: you're getting hung up on the term itself - as if the term itself is the only thing that makes the music it labels different. "True metal" isn't a just term, it's a concept. You characterize it as if people simply call their favourite bands "true metal" and that is that. But people actually have ideas of what "true metal" is: it is a subjective concept, yet it is an ideal that outlines certain qualities that should be lived up to. Just reading this thread ought to convince you that "true metal" means more than "my favourite bands" to people.

Written by totaliteraliter on 23.11.2008 at 22:00

Written by Author on 23.11.2008 at 19:02

Written by totaliteraliter on 12.11.2008 at 23:46

Written by Author on 12.11.2008 at 23:23
No one labels their favourite bands as true metal? That's a pretty dumb statment which could be easily proven wrong by taking look at the attitudes of metalheads.

I didn't make that statement. Try reading my post again, then have another go at replying if you wish.

Sorry for the late reply i havent been on in a bit, but you said "People don't use such terms as "true metal" or "good music" as an excuse to feel good about bands they like (that barely even makes sense)..."

Close enough to what I said lol; I guess I just don't see the point of definitions like true and false metal which were deliberatly cooked up to make some styles of metal seem superior to others. Make no mistake, I love styles like Thrash and NWOBHM much more then Alternative Metal but I still wouldn't use a term like that; once again it's just pointless in my opinion.

Your slightly incoherent ramblings here have done little to clarify the situation. But I think we've come closer to the root of your misunderstanding: you're getting hung up on the term itself - as if the term itself is the only thing that makes the music it labels different. "True metal" isn't a just term, it's a concept. You characterize it as if people simply call their favourite bands "true metal" and that is that. But people actually have ideas of what "true metal" is: it is a subjective concept, yet it is an ideal that outlines certain qualities that should be lived up to. Just reading this thread ought to convince you that "true metal" means more than "my favourite bands" to people.

You're odd little analysis of my "misunderstanding" kind of made me laugh, thanks for that I was having a bad day.

There will probably always be a rift between Alternative Metal and older styles of metal with or without terms like "true" and "false" metal, i'll agree with you there. The term "true metal" however does little more then divide these two catagories even further with passionate underground metalheads bashing everything un-true and metalheads avoiding these styles just because they are hated and degraded with the label of "false metal".

People do have an idea of what True Metal is. That's only because it was created by musically ignorant "underground" metalheads as a way to degrade newer styles of metal simply because they're not as classic and are more mainstream compared to older genres. Tell yourself that it was created as a means to characterize some styles all you want; if that was true they wouldn't have cooked up names to make one section sound appealing (true metal) while the other was named to make people think it's shit (false metal). It was made to have one style be superior. I can't believe people on this site actually go along with that crap.

Just as well, there is no need for this fricken term. There already are sub-genres which accurately define the many different styles of metal. When we take half those styles and say "alright, you're true metal so you're good" but at the same time we dimiss other styles and label them false, absolutely nothing is accomplished.

As someone who just got into metal I can say that it's laughable how you guys do this. Metal already has very few fans compared to other styles yet the few of you choose to argue amongst yourselves based on needless terms. Definetly geniuses...Nothing is really being accomplished here though, so, im done. Nice chat.

Written by Author on 25.11.2008 at 01:21
There will probably always be a rift between Alternative Metal and older styles of metal with or without terms like "true" and "false" metal, i'll agree with you there. The term "true metal" however does little more then divide these two catagories even further with passionate underground metalheads bashing everything un-true and metalheads avoiding these styles just because they are hated and degraded with the label of "false metal".

Interesting observation, I must say though that in my experience the usage of "false metal" is slightly different. "False metal" is often reserved for bands that clearly play metal music but are perceived to fall ideologically short (Trivium or Dragonforce, perhaps) while "alternative metal" bands will simply be referred to as "not metal" by the crowd that is apt to use such terminology. Basically, true/false metal has to do with artistic quality, not necessarily whether a band actually plays metal or not.

Written by Author on 25.11.2008 at 01:21
People do have an idea of what True Metal is. That's only because it was created by musically ignorant "underground" metalheads as a way to degrade newer styles of metal simply because they're not as classic and are more mainstream compared to older genres.

Yes, this seems to be a common theory among neophytes. Perhaps you will grow out of this mindset as you grow into metal, or perhaps you will retain the anti-elitist/underground/"true"/whatever stance; in any case what I am sure you will not do is supply any proof for your theory. So good luck in your explorations...

Written by Norm on 17.06.2009 at 05:21

Sometimes, people get so caught up in which bands or scenes they like or dislike that they forget the true meaning of Metal. These people are not tr00. It's not about the band, or the genre. It's about the Metal Mentality. People who create, support, or just listen to Metal, for the reason being that they love and respect Metal. They are tr00.

Metal was a gift to all of us. And let's face it, we didn't do anything to deserve Metal, yet we take it upon ourselves to decide what's tr00 and what isn't. I don't care if it's Black Metal or Power Metal or Metalcore. I also don't care if it was made in 1970, 1986, or yeseterday. These things do not matter. People go out and they love and respect Metal. Some are gifted musicians and are able to create more Metal for more people to enjoy. You want to label it as un-tr00 for an unjustified reason?

The only circumstance that a band wouldn't be tr00 is if they made their music that sounded like Metal, but was actually pop. Nu-metal bands are notorious for this, but that doesn't mean that it's impossible for a Nu-metal person to be tr00. If they make music as a testament to the greatness of Metal, then it is tr00 indeed.

Long story short, tr00 Metal is all Metal that honors the mentality of the genre. Everything else is irrelevant. If you are listening to Metal for reasons other than the fact that you love and respect it, you do not deserve this gift. And if you are someone who makes music that sounds like Metal, but doesn't respect the roots, then you are as false as the falsest.

I agree with you on this one. The "tr00ness" in metal resides in doing it, or listening to it for those right reason you mention. There has to be respect, love, and mostly, the effect. That's art, the effect, and metal is music, music is art... metal is art. It doesn't matter if it's prog, black, nu, as long as it's made with "feeling", whether it's personal (musician looking to express himself), or if it's the musician trying to give out a message, trying to get an audience to feel, it is TRUE. Having this, I'd say that a band that "sold-out", in terms of making music just to get some monetary profit, or to purely seek fame without caring about the rest, then I'd say those aren't true.

True metal is a term used by those who are narrow minded. Those who believe that a metal fan should only listen to metal, bands who are only listened to by metal fans (if not they're a sell out) and should only dress with metal clothing. I've known a few "true metal" people, they were always young and generally seem to grow out of it at some point.

Written by Norm on 17.06.2009 at 05:21

Metal was a gift to all of us. And let's face it, we didn't do anything to deserve Metal, yet we take it upon ourselves to decide what's tr00 and what isn't.

just responding to this section. no point with the rest. "true" arguments are pretty f'in stupid.

1. "Metal was a gift... ... we didn't do anything to deserve Metal."

I disagree. I think plunking down my hard-earned cash to buy albums, attend shows, and buy merchandise meets any qualifications to "deserve" metal.

2. "..we take it upon ourselves to decide what's tr00 and what isn't."

speak for yourself. i don't. as stated above, i think "true" arguments are pretty f'in stupid. mostly they are done by lame ass failures insecure with themselves - so attacking someone else's metal cred is some bullshit way to solidify their own.

Metal Cred?

Metal credibility. a blatant rip-off of the term "street cred" applied to the metal subculture. attacking others - be they fans or people - for not being "true" is an attempt by the assailant to somehow appear more metal.

Written by BitterCOld on 18.06.2009 at 01:20

Metal credibility. a blatant rip-off of the term "street cred" applied to the metal subculture. attacking others - be they fans or people - for not being "true" is an attempt by the assailant to somehow appear more metal.

Hear hear

(who's gonna say Order!)

Written by BitterCOld on 17.06.2009 at 20:49

Written by Norm on 17.06.2009 at 05:21

Metal was a gift to all of us. And let's face it, we didn't do anything to deserve Metal, yet we take it upon ourselves to decide what's tr00 and what isn't.

1. "Metal was a gift... ... we didn't do anything to deserve Metal."

I disagree. I think plunking down my hard-earned cash to buy albums, attend shows, and buy merchandise meets any qualifications to "deserve" metal.

Yes indeed. What Metal would be, if fans wouldn't buy albums, attend shows, and buy merchandise.. Playing for themselves? It's mutual, Metal bands give music, energy and ideas and fans pay them with support and respect..
So it's ridiculous to say fans don't deserve Metal..

Written by BitterCOld on 17.06.2009 at 20:49

Written by Norm on 17.06.2009 at 05:21

Metal was a gift to all of us. And let's face it, we didn't do anything to deserve Metal, yet we take it upon ourselves to decide what's tr00 and what isn't.

just responding to this section. no point with the rest. "true" arguments are pretty f'in stupid.

1. "Metal was a gift... ... we didn't do anything to deserve Metal."

I disagree. I think plunking down my hard-earned cash to buy albums, attend shows, and buy merchandise meets any qualifications to "deserve" metal.

2. "..we take it upon ourselves to decide what's tr00 and what isn't."

speak for yourself. i don't. as stated above, i think "true" arguments are pretty f'in stupid. mostly they are done by lame ass failures insecure with themselves - so attacking someone else's metal cred is some bullshit way to solidify their own.

Couldn't of said it better myself, well said my good man!

Written by Norm on 21.06.2009 at 04:26


1. I'm sure that when Black Sabbath invented Metal they didn't know who you were or care about how much money you had. (With the exception of Black Sabbath and all of their Inflences,) None of us ever gave anything toward the creation of Metal. I buy CD's too - but that just means that I'm paying money in order to have a physical copy of songs that I enjoy. The point of the quote you have taken is that Metal is such a great thing that we can enjoy, and believe it or not, the average Metalhead didn't contribute anything to it's creation. Sure you have money that you spend on Metal, and the collective effort of each supporter of Metal keeps Metal alive, true - but that's not what gave birth to Metal. Remember, Metal is more than just the music you hear. It's a lifestyle for many, a philosophy (or many philosophies) for others, a form of art for a lot of people, expression, connection, passion, respect, and love.

It's great to think that you as an individual contribute something significant to the entity of Metal, but the unfortunate truth is that most people who listen to Metal have no effect on it's existance. If you or me died today or tomorrow, Metal would live on because Metal is so much more than just us. If you think you did something to deserve Metal, then you have a lot of respect to learn for this genre. This idea is the "Tr00 metal" which you have so close-mindedly rejected.

2. Don't take my quotes out of context. This was a statement I made as a generalization to the stereotypical Metalhead who thinks he is justified in declaring some music as 'tr00' or 'false' metal. Which, (similar to you, but for vastly different reasons) I think is a joke.

it is very clear you are new to metal and still in some quasi-religious honeymoon phase in regards to "metal" and us, the undeserving peons you apparently think we are.

here's the deal, chief. people like me, who buy albums and attend shows, are the reason people still put shit out and that bands exist beyond a myspace page. the relationship between entertainer/artist and fan is a symbiotic one.

i'm glad you like your metal, but get off that soapbox, please.

Lol. Journey of metal.

Written by Norm on 21.06.2009 at 19:38

m/ p.s. I've been headbanging for about 4 years now, but I will admit that I have a long way to go on my journey of Metal.

And I've been headbanging since I was four and I still have so much to learn.

Let me just spout some advice: Instead of trying to make statements like you have been, take a step back and ask 'hey, what can I learn from these guys?'

When I read your statement "I'm sure that when Black Sabbath invented Metal..." I couldn't believe it. It without a doubt earned this award:


Black Sabbath did not invent Metal! I am so sick of hearing people say this. Norm, have you heard The MC5 or Yardbirds? How about Mountain or Dust? Black Sabbath was not the only band at the time!

Written by Doc G. on 22.06.2009 at 01:27

Lol. Journey of metal.

Yeah I hear a lot of people saying that Blue Cheer played what was later known as heavy metal in the late 60s...and COB playing Journey is just scary...

Written by Author on 22.06.2009 at 02:15

Yeah I hear a lot of people saying that Blue Cheer played what was later known as heavy metal in the late 60s

And there was more than just Blue Cheer.

The mid to late 1960's produced what I would call the proto-Metal scene. These were the bands that laid the groundwork for the 70's Heavy Metal movement. These bands, while not "fully" Heavy Metal, were experimenting with different tunings, darker lyrics, heavier sounds and fast playing. Blue Cheer, along with Mountain, Deep Purple, Wishbone Ash, Cream, Uriah Heep, Jeff Beck Group, Steppenwolf, The Yardbirds, Iron Butterfly, Love Sculpture were creating the first Heavy Metal Music just as much, and often before Led Zeppelin and Black Sabbath. Credit should also go to The Rolling Stone, The Beatles, Jimi Hendrix and The Doors for much of their influence on these bands.

Written by Doc G. on 22.06.2009 at 01:27

Lol. Journey of metal.

Don't Stop Believing.

Written by Norm on 17.06.2009 at 17:46

Well, I've only gotten seriously into Metal at around November of last year. I loved Metal for a lot longer than that, but at the beginning of November I only owned 2 CD's and a Band shirt, and I had never been to a show before.

meh.

Quote:

Written by Doc G. on 14.11.2008 at 11:07



I get what you're saying about newbs to metal (like myself ) not really understanding which bands would qualify as "true metal" in the opinions of experienced metalheads. You have to understand though, that true metal isn't even a real term.

Well, it actually is an existing term which is used quite often (especially in Europe in a country such as Germany)

Like Hellish Star pointed out a couple of posts earlier:

1. True Metal as a kind of genre for Metal bands that keep the spirit of the eighties metal movement alive. Bands like Helstar, Jag Panzer, Anvil, Nasty Savage, Attacker, Overlorde, Cloven Hoof, Deadly Blessing and less 'famous' bands like Vortex, Defender,... but also new bands who play in vein of these bands like Artic Flame, Axehammer, Heathendom, Portrait etc... Especially in tradional "eighties" styles you will find these bands (Heavy Metal, US (power) metal and Thrash). Every year there are several festivals with bands like these; most famous is the KEEP IT TRUE festival in Germany (next saturday there's another edition with Flotsam & Jetsam, Nasty Savage, Girlschool, Evil, Tokyo Blade,...). Meanwhile also in Death and Black Metal we know TRUE Metal bands but their spirits are lying elswhere.

Hence a festival such as Keep It True

By that definition, Dragonforce is true metal

Personally, I can't help but feel a little sorry for those metalheads who feel the need to buff their self-esteem and "metal cred" in order to feel better about their dedication to their music. Complex definitions of what "True Metal" supposedly means fail to grasp the core of the issue: it's a term loaded with bias. certainly not a viable definition that could be used informatively by insiders and outsiders alike. Truth be told, to me the quote above about keeping "the spirit of the eighties metal movement alive" is ridicilous bollocks that would make many respectable music journalists, students, artists and fans snort in laughter. Besides, your definition of "true metal" might not be my definition of "true metal" and because words are subjective, and there's no common consensus what "true metal" means, it's a redundant term. That's something people seem to forget about style definitions (- genre is, historically, the wrong word anyhow): they're completely arbitrary, and I can make up a definition with just as much authority as you. The only thing that makes some definitions accepted and others rejected is whether people at large start using the word. And it seems to me that the definition above is one made by experts/elitists who have too close a perspectve into their favorite genre to remain impartial and rational.

If it's not even commonly accepted on Metal Storm, how could we make it a global standard?

It's all good to use with a hint of self-irony. Manowar is a good example of such (or at least the Manowar fans who don't take it too seriously), and it's pretty petty to get mad about them calling themselves true metal.

I may be arrogant to believe this, but I think as metalhead who's seen the scence from the inside, and then put some distance between himself and metal (as an all-encompassing world that many fans seem to experience it), I have some viable perspective into the matter. Hey, I might be wrong, but it works for me. If it doesn't float your boat, feel free to ignore me:

All the theoretical mumbo-jumbo and pseudo-history aside, I think it boils down to "My dad can beat your dad," and that's best left into the sandbox.

Quote:

Written by Italics on 22.06.2009 at 13:23

Written by Doc G. on 14.11.2008 at 11:07



I get what you're saying about newbs to metal (like myself ) not really understanding which bands would qualify as "true metal" in the opinions of experienced metalheads. You have to understand though, that true metal isn't even a real term.

Well, it actually is an existing term which is used quite often (especially in Europe in a country such as Germany)

Like Hellish Star pointed out a couple of posts earlier:

1. True Metal as a kind of genre for Metal bands that keep the spirit of the eighties metal movement alive. Bands like Helstar, Jag Panzer, Anvil, Nasty Savage, Attacker, Overlorde, Cloven Hoof, Deadly Blessing and less 'famous' bands like Vortex, Defender,... but also new bands who play in vein of these bands like Artic Flame, Axehammer, Heathendom, Portrait etc... Especially in tradional "eighties" styles you will find these bands (Heavy Metal, US (power) metal and Thrash). Every year there are several festivals with bands like these; most famous is the KEEP IT TRUE festival in Germany (next saturday there's another edition with Flotsam & Jetsam, Nasty Savage, Girlschool, Evil, Tokyo Blade,...). Meanwhile also in Death and Black Metal we know TRUE Metal bands but their spirits are lying elswhere.

Hence a festival such as Keep It True

By that definition, Dragonforce is true metal

Nope, cause Dragonforce has nothing to do musically with the bands mentioned by Hellish Star. Dragonforce plays modern euro power metal at higher velocities than most and doesn't grab back to the Eighties with their music. And certainly don't keep the spirit of the eighties metal movement alive.

True is the opposite of false. Therefore, all metal that isn't true metal, is false metal. By the above definition of true metal, most of the bands featured on MS are false metal, and thus not metal at all.

That's pretty solid logic. That makes the above definition a poor one, because it will inevitably lead to my inaccurate conclusion. Besides, the word "true" is not impartial. It implies incredible bias and sympathy towards this supposed 80s metal movement. Why should that movement, specifically, be more metal than anything else? (Because that's what the word "true" means; it's rather undeniable.) Besides, it's extremely dubious to categorize music based on something as subjective and obscure as "spirit."

I define true metal as metal with artistic quality. That includes some heavyspeed, early Black and early Death metal. Not because of the age, but because modern stuff sucks. Come on, what do we have now? Cannibal Corpse, Cradle of Filth, In Flames? Laughing my ass off.

Or, you know, Bloodbath, Drudkh, for example?

Yet more evidence against and objective definition, though.

Well, artistic quality is very subjective. I am sure many MSers don't appreciate the artistic value in Gaudi's architecture or Goethe's literature, but others would disagree.

For whatever reason, many metalheads seem to think metal is art music, instead of popular music. That's a rather self-absorbed and skewed delusion, but I guess it applies to many genres and subcultures: people like to think of their "thing" as special and better than anything else. It's pretty silly to speak of "true metal" as artistic music, though, because metal is popular music. Metal is not art music, nor is metal traditional music, no matter how much bands sometimes like to pretend so and borrow elements from the two other major genres.

Written by Metalhead2 on 23.06.2009 at 17:00

I define true metal as metal with artistic quality. That includes some heavyspeed, early Black and early Death metal. Not because of the age, but because modern stuff sucks. Come on, what do we have now? Cannibal Corpse, Cradle of Filth, In Flames? Laughing my ass off.

Well, by that definition I am as untrue as you can get since I don't listen to heavy speed, early Black or early Death Metal.

Hey, damn you, Jed! You reposted that to get the first post on the page. >_>

Meh, I would still like some serious reply from those who disagree with me.

I define "true metal" as listening to whatever the hell you want to without having someone else tell you the bands you listen to "aren't metal."

Seriously... it's one thing to criticize a band for making poor music... another thing to criticize their fans and call their music "fake."