Well, de facto, alternative metal evolved from alternative rock, not heavy metal, so you cannot say the objections have no support at all.

And it still beats me why Korn are considered alternative metal, yet Guano Apes stay alternative rock.

Written by Guest on 30.01.2008 at 21:49
People should practice more iconoclasty, it's refreshing.

Just for fun, or what?

Written by BitterCOld on 30.01.2008 at 22:15
I realize this is a *metal* forum - and don't feel that the word "metal" is thrown around too haphazardly. I prefer the gross oversimplificaition to the near anal levels scientific subclassification of metal.

Then I guess this is the right place for you. I like genres to be somewhat accurate myself, rather than having a lot of illogical overlap (it just confuses those trying to explore, I find).

Written by BitterCOld on 30.01.2008 at 22:15
I would expect staggering levels of stupidity on other sites, but would hope that Alt-Metal ignorant posters here would come to this thread with an open mind (being that metalheads do so seem to love clamoring on about how open minded they are) and be ready to be informed as opposed to coming in like many have flailing about blindly.

Just seems to me like you aren't doing much to help the situation. Surely you realize that to many "alternative metal" = alt rock + heavy (certainly before I came here I thought this was the only widely used definition) and that as a result you're going to get many who don't recognize it as part of metal (for reasons beyond stupidity/"close mindedness"/insert ad-hominem) - I'd think that your position is better presented sans the Manowar (etc.) bashing and whatnot.

@Skald, interesting theory. Care to give it some foundation? If a metal band takes influence from various alternative forms of music, is it still evolving from alternative rock?

@totaliteraliter, iconoclasty helps keep an open mind and helps in the neverending quest to reach greater levels of objectivity. It also helps one develop as an individual.

Written by totaliteraliter on 30.01.2008 at 22:51

Then I guess this is the right place for you. I like genres to be somewhat accurate myself, rather than having a lot of illogical overlap (it just confuses those trying to explore, I find).

Meh. Classification is messy. "Alternative Metal" is used as an umbrella term to cover a wide variety of subgenres that don't easily fit elsewhere. "Extreme Metal" and "Melodic Metal" also cover a wide swatch of styles.

Even genre classifications themselves cover a wide area and are often blurry, particularly with bands that straddle styles or incorporate elements of other subgenres.

Never mind the fact many bands might hop from one to another.

Plant, Animal, and Mineral is a much easier way to maintain forum boards as opposed to breaking everything down into musical Kingdom/Phylum/Class/Order/Family/Genus/Species...

Written by totaliteraliter on 30.01.2008 at 22:51

Just seems to me like you aren't doing much to help the situation. Surely you realize that to many "alternative metal" = alt rock + heavy (certainly before I came here I thought this was the only widely used definition) and that as a result you're going to get many who don't recognize it as part of metal (for reasons beyond stupidity/"close mindedness"/insert ad-hominem) - I'd think that your position is better presented sans the Manowar (etc.) bashing and whatnot.

That is your opinion.

I have stated why I post the way I have in this thread and stand by it.

As for Manowar, fuck Manowar.

When a band takes their image to the point where they start marketing condoms (named "The Warriors Shield", no less), they deserve to be bashed.

Written by Guest on 30.01.2008 at 23:21

@Skald, interesting theory. Care to give it some foundation? If a metal band takes influence from various alternative forms of music, is it still evolving from alternative rock?

Theory? What are you talking about? That's history.

After alternative rock rose to popularity (mostly thanks to the heavy metal influence - grunge), the music industry became interested with the alternative form of music. They started promoting artists from the genre (creating for example the watered down, better produced form of grunge: post-grunge). However, the initial idea was somewhat lost and this heavy alternative rock wasn't always influenced by actual heavy metal. All the same, heavy alternative rock was labeled as alternative metal. This created a paradox, where bands such as Nirvana wouldn't be labeled as alternative metal, despite having more elements of heavy metal than some of the actual alternative metal bands. Metal bands that actually took influence from the rock side weren't included into the alternative metal scene, instead being labeled as groove metal.

You can always look it up on the internet. Just a quick search gave me this result:
http://infernality.blogspot.com/2006/05/alternative-metal-1990s-and-2000s.html

This may be the only forum I've been to where melodic metal isn't bombarded with insults. It depends on the forum you visit, most forums seem to house a large following of extreme metal fans who hate power metal for the reasons you listed. In general, it seems to me like majority of metalheads aren't as open minded as they think they are. It seems like they consider themselves open minded, simply because the sub-genres they listen to have such a vast variety of different band and music influences, whether it's extreme, melodic or alternative metal.

I hope to see some alternative metal bands live in the future to try and compare them to some of the other bands I've seen live. I won't comment on any more non-alternative metal bands in this thread, but I disagree with your comments about the bands you mentioned.

I think that musical tastes are country-related as well. It seems like power metal is more popular in European countries, while alternative metal styles are more westernised. At least that's what I've noticed with metal in Australia. Most of the people that listen to power metal here are immigrants from Europe. You tend to see more Aussies going to alternative gigs and listening to alternative music than immigrants from Europe.

Written by Guest on 30.01.2008 at 23:21
@totaliteraliter, iconoclasty helps keep an open mind and helps in the neverending quest to reach greater levels of objectivity. It also helps one develop as an individual.

Practically speaking, it makes discussion much more difficult in this case which I think should be a major concern...

Written by BitterCOld on 30.01.2008 at 23:34
Plant, Animal, and Mineral is a much easier way to maintain forum boards as opposed to breaking everything down into musical Kingdom/Phylum/Class/Order/Family/Genus/Species...

Well for forum organization is one thing, but in actual conversation if we don't get any more specific than "alternative metal" or "melodic metal" things become difficult. "Alternative metal" can work as a miscellaneous category on a forum but in actual musical discussion it seems to have very limited usefulness as it doesn't even differentiate between metal and rock and punk and whatever else is thrown in.

Written by totaliteraliter on 30.01.2008 at 22:51
That is your opinion.

I have stated why I post the way I have in this thread and stand by it.

As for Manowar, fuck Manowar.

When a band takes their image to the point where they start marketing condoms (named "The Warriors Shield", no less), they deserve to be bashed.

: Fair enough, I just hope you'll excuse me if I fail to sympathize next time someone comes in and drops a negative comment about "alternative metal" of equal intelligence.

Written by Guest on 31.01.2008 at 00:14

Written by Guest on 30.01.2008 at 23:21

@Skald, interesting theory. Care to give it some foundation? If a metal band takes influence from various alternative forms of music, is it still evolving from alternative rock?

Theory? What are you talking about? That's history.

After alternative rock rose to popularity (mostly thanks to the heavy metal influence - grunge), the music industry became interested with the alternative form of music. They started promoting artists from the genre (creating for example the watered down, better produced form of grunge: post-grunge). However, the initial idea was somewhat lost and this heavy alternative rock wasn't always influenced by actual heavy metal. All the same, heavy alternative rock was labeled as alternative metal. This created a paradox, where bands such as Nirvana wouldn't be labeled as alternative metal, despite having more elements of heavy metal than some of the actual alternative metal bands. Metal bands that actually took influence from the rock side weren't included into the alternative metal scene, instead being labeled as groove metal.

You can always look it up on the internet. Just a quick search gave me this result:
http://infernality.blogspot.com/2006/05/alternative-metal-1990s-and-2000s.html

You're talking about alternative metal as if it's some specific genre, rather than a very loosely-knit grouping of a myriad of very varied genres and subgenres that only share a marked difference to the vast mainstream of metal. Take a band like Neurosis, a pivotal act in their subgenre, where they ever alternative rock? Or a band like Converge, also a formative act in their subgenre, alternative rock?

@totaliterater, on the contrary, stepping down from the grand ivory tower of "true metal" would in this case help one understand what this whole discussion is about.

Ur-Nammu, have you any support that your assumption of what alternative metal is happens to be right? Or are you simply figuring the meaning out all on your own, without bothering to look up the background behind the term?

First of all Neurosis emerged from the rock scene, so the term could still apply to them. However, Neurosis are experimental metal, not alternative. Same with the entire post-metal and avant-garde metal scenes. Why were these put into alternative metal forum, anyway?

Neurosis emerged from the hardcore scene, ventured into noisecore and nowadays is some sort of post-metal... So yeah, they can definitely be considered alternative metal.

Avant-garde bands, unless they are clearly a part of some particular extreme or melodic metal genre, all fall under alternative metal since traditionally most avant bands have been influenced by alternative metal acts such as Mr. Bungle, Painkiller or Praxis.

@Skald, would you care to pick up a dictionary and look up the word "alternative" as opposed to "mainstream".

I don't know about the other bands, but Painkiller?! What do they have to do with rock or metal or any form of alternative music for that matter? They're an avant-jazz band, definitely experimental. Is John Zorn to be considered an alternative metal artist now? Personally, I would much rather associate him with The Residents than with Korn.

Ur-Nammu, alternative no longer means what it was supposed to mean since the 90s. You use "indie"/"indie rock" for independent/underground artists now. Alternative metal is definitely more mainstream than the actual metal bands.

Written by Guest on 31.01.2008 at 14:47

I don't know about the other bands, but Painkiller?! What do they have to do with rock or metal or any form of alternative music for that matter? They're an avant-jazz band, definitely experimental. Is John Zorn to be considered an alternative metal artist now? Personally, I would much rather associate him with The Residents than with Korn.

Ur-Nammu, alternative no longer means what it was supposed to mean since the 90s. You use "indie"/"indie rock" for independent/underground artists now. Alternative metal is definitely more mainstream than the actual metal bands.

You missed my point. Debates about whether or not Korn et al are "ruining metal" and "selling metal out" aside, the vast majority of alternative metal acts differ markedly from the mainstream _of metal_. Alternative metal is not, as I said, a genre, but a loosely-knit grouping of various undercurrents in styles of heavier music that are thus grouped since they do not fit into any of the household genres. Do you see what I mean? Or do you consider "melodic metal" to be a genre as well?

@Skald
John Zorn is of course not considered an alternative metal artist by anyone but some of his project definitely are, Painkiller being the most obvious one. Some Naked City also falls into this category, as does Moonchild and I.A.O.

It is true however that nowadays the indie term is used in the same way the alternative term was used in the mid and late 80s...

Written by totaliteraliter on 31.01.2008 at 02:17

Written by totaliteraliter on 30.01.2008 at 22:51
That is your opinion.

I have stated why I post the way I have in this thread and stand by it.

As for Manowar, fuck Manowar.

When a band takes their image to the point where they start marketing condoms (named "The Warriors Shield", no less), they deserve to be bashed.

: Fair enough, I just hope you'll excuse me if I fail to sympathize next time someone comes in and drops a negative comment about "alternative metal" of equal intelligence.

The difference is, I took the time to actually listen to some of their music and read some of their lyrics. And you don't see me assailing that band on their forum, either. I despise them, but I don't feel the need to persecute others or piss on their parade on the Manowar thread for liking crap like "Blow your speakers.".

However, a good chunk of the people who have posted out of complete ignorance on this thread have that band on their favorites list.

Is it petty to blast them for listening to a lowest common denominator metal band?

Sure.

But as Suicidal Tendencies sang, "Two wrongs don't make a right, but, ooh, they make me feel a whole lot better."

Ur-Nammu... I'm not going to argue over definitions of alternative metal you decide to come up with. Seriously, look up the term instead of assuming what it means.

jupitreas, John Zorn used elements from many musical styles, metal being among them. However, it was only one among greater number of genres. To me the prevelent ones were jazz, hardcore and experimental rock. Actually, when it comes to avant-garde metal I hear stronger impact from experimental rock in general. So. We'll simply have to agree to disagree, I guess.

Written by Guest on 31.01.2008 at 07:48
@totaliterater, on the contrary, stepping down from the grand ivory tower of "true metal" would in this case help one understand what this whole discussion is about.

: It's about logic, convenience, accuracy. It's more useful for discussion if we call rock bands rock, punk bands punk, metal bands metal (etc.) instead of grouping a bunch of them into a category called "alternative metal" which is misleading and of limited usefulness - it's inconsistent and poorly named.

Written by Guest on 31.01.2008 at 17:35
Alternative metal is not, as I said, a genre, but a loosely-knit grouping of various undercurrents in styles of heavier music...

Actually, it's both (this has been discussed over the last few pages).

Written by BitterCOld on 31.01.2008 at 18:23
The difference is, I took the time to actually listen to some of their music and read some of their lyrics. And you don't see me assailing that band on their forum, either. I despise them, but I don't feel the need to persecute others or piss on their parade on the Manowar thread for liking crap like "Blow your speakers.".

Well, at least now I know exactly what kind of hypocrite you are. And I'll reiterate my suggestion not to get angry when people don't share your sloppy view of metal typology - "alternative metal" as a category is simply and legitimately inadequate in many situations.

Well, then, oh wise one, how would you organize this site to avoid "sloppy" classifications?

Please do tell.

Written by totaliteraliter on 31.01.2008 at 02:17
Well for forum organization is one thing, but in actual conversation if we don't get any more specific than "alternative metal" or "melodic metal" things become difficult. "Alternative metal" can work as a miscellaneous category on a forum but in actual musical discussion it seems to have very limited usefulness as it doesn't even differentiate between metal and rock and punk and whatever else is thrown in.

so for forum organization it is correct?

then what is the problem with this thread and usage of alternative metal?

it merely addresses the bands that are filed into this category are unpopular on the site.

there are plenty of individual band threads within the Alternative Metal forum, meaning even a cursory glance by a poster at the contents of this forum would clearly show that MS's classification of Alternative Metal far exceeds just nu-metal.

those detractors who mention nothing but nu-metal in their posts couldn't be bothered to engage in that simple step (or reading the actual posts within the thread itself) before responding.

I would enjoy a split of alternative metal forum though. I really find it ridiculous to put bands such as Arcturus or Isis next to bands such as Korn and Seether. The bands are simply completely different.

Avant-garde metal, progressive metal and post-metal grouped as experimental metal would work much better, imo.

Written by Guest on 31.01.2008 at 20:38

I would enjoy a split of alternative metal forum though. I really find it ridiculous to put bands such as Arcturus or Isis next to bands such as Korn and Seether. The bands are simply completely different.

Avant-garde metal, progressive metal and post-metal grouped as experimental metal would work much better, imo.

In extreme metal, there are threads for Metallica, Emperor, Thorns, and Morbid Angel visible. They don't really sound like one another.

Nor does Nightwish or Dragonforce sound like Doom Metal - although they are nothing alike they are in the Melodic Metal forum.

Ivan and co. made a decision to try and keep it as simple as possible for the basic forums. Having a separate forum for each agreed upon subdivision would simply be unwieldy.

And even then it wouldn't be too accurate for bands that jump across borders.

You mention Arcturus - who are actually currently threaded under Extreme Metal based on their roots. They crossed boundaries, going from black to avant garde.

Metallica is also in the "extreme" metal folder - but there is nothing extreme about anything they've done from 1990 on. Same with Megadeth.

Ulver, for example, has had a massive shift to the point they aren't even metal anymore. Where do they get filed?

Music and Metal are very broad topics. No matter how you break things down, you will, at some point, invariably try to hammer a square peg into a round hole.

I think the "KISS" (keep it simple, stupid) option the web staff have opted to take is far better than having 15-20 different forums (still teeming with inconsistencies and overlaps) in the metal section alone.

Written by Guest on 31.01.2008 at 19:17

Ur-Nammu... I'm not going to argue over definitions of alternative metal you decide to come up with. Seriously, look up the term instead of assuming what it means.

Unless you speak a different variation of the English language, alternative as an adjective when describing styles of music refers to substyles that do not snugly fit into the mainstream paradigm of the style at large, i.e. alternative rock is rock that is best categorised as rock, but differs noticeably from what is considered rock in the mainstream sense. That's the logic behind naming alt rock alt rock, and that's the logic behind naming alt metal alt metal. If one insists on assign new, irrational and linguistically unsound denotations for words of the English language, then that is no business of mine.

Written by BitterCOld on 31.01.2008 at 20:50

Nor does Nightwish or Dragonforce sound like Doom Metal - although they are nothing alike they are in the Melodic Metal forum.

If they are nothing alike, why are power and doom both metal?

What I'm talking about here is difference between avant-garde metal (Arcturus) and post-grunge (Seether).

So the alternative metal tag covers a wider span than does melodic metal. By the very definition of alternative, that stands up to reason. (Must admit I'm not familiar with Seether outside of one song - no idea whether they are metal or should be filed in the Rock forum)

Clearly this must not stand.

Organize a protest and bug staff until this injustice is cleared up.

I would myself, but this is so egregious I am going to have to resort to whisky and NyQuil to make it through the days until every album has it's own thread so there can be absolutely zero confusion, overlap, or possible musical differences that would cause further discomfort.

Written by BitterCOld on 31.01.2008 at 20:37
so for forum organization it is correct?

I don't know how it can be "correct" but it seems passable. Other forums get away fine with "metal" and "not metal" discussion which is something to consider perhaps (as you said simpler is probably better). "Alternative metal" is definitely the worst offender but "extreme" and "melodic" are pretty artificial and useless categories as well for discussion/analysis.

The issue isn't so much that "alternative metal" is too broad, but that it covers totally unrelated styles, many of which (perhaps most?) aren't even conceivable as metal by any reasonable definition. So while "extreme metal" at lest refers to metal subgenres with some tangible similarity, "alternative metal" is being used to refer to subgenres of not only metal but also rock (and others) here that have no similarity beyond some percieved classification difficulty. Which again is why it may work as a forum category but as far as having a conversation about what "alternative metal" is as a whole it's pretty useless. We're better off talking about it in more acurate terms like hard rock, grunge, alternative rock, etc.

the problem lies in the fact that a lot of people treat metal as a very specific genre description when in fact it isnt...
metal isnt only about a particular type of riffing, rhythmical patterns and vocal stylings that stem from iron maiden, judas priest, slayer or cannibal corpse.
metal is about making a big racket with guitars and drums and a recognizable 'machismo' attitude (in addition to a recognizable tribute to bands that are archetypically metal, like the ones mentioned above). according to this description of metal, grunge, funk metal, rap metal etc are all definitely a form of metal (as are some bands traditionally categorised as post-punk, such as killing joke or fields of the nephilim).

Sure, this might seem like heresy to hardened metalheads who are desperate to belong to a particular group that is defined by narrow style restrictions, however, the purpose of this site is to introduce people to good music, not only good music that fits a narrow definition of metal, and this is why we like the way things are categorised the way they are over here. this is also why we sometimes feature reviews of bands that are pretty far away from the narrow definition of metal - we think open-minded metalheads or people who simply like heavy music might find them interesting.

its an issue of promoting open-mindedness and curiosity instead of "genre bigotry"

Metal isn't "about making a big racket with guitars and drums and a recognizable 'machismo' attitude"
The element that distinguishes metal from other music genres is the butching of the rhythm parts. Metal bands tend to give them "strange" progression, stress them in many points, but most of all make a heavy use of staccato. That's what makes metal heavy, unpopular, annoying to listen to.
Iced Earth do it, Enslaved do it, Vader do it, Korpiklaani do it, Stolen Babies do it, Dark Tranquillity do it, Paradise Lost do it, Amorphis used to do it. The Offspring don't do it, Linkin Park don't do it, Korn don't do it.

Actually, this was the problem with Nightwish's Once. While songs like Dark Chest of Wonders still displayed use of these techniques, most of the songs on the album lacked or diminished it. Result? High popularity outside of the metal community, but less so within it.

Written by jupitreas on 31.01.2008 at 23:37
metal is about making a big racket with guitars and drums and a recognizable 'machismo' attitude... according to this description of metal, grunge, funk metal, rap metal etc are all definitely a form of metal (as are some bands traditionally categorised as post-punk, such as killing joke or fields of the nephilim).

The problem with this isn't that it's "heresy" or "untrue" : , but that this view of metal is musicologically hopeless and academically laughable. For serious discussion we need to be able to look at technical elements, and also at development and evolution. Start throwing in things like grunge or post-punk or funk "metal" and you are totally ignoring the more reasonable and logical evolutionary descriptions of metal; instead you are picking and choosing from across the music world subgenres that bear a superficial resemblance to the things that are actually fundamental to metal (fundamentals which would never be discovered with such a view). It's like if we were on a punk forum and we were calling thrash metal and black metal "alternative punk."

@totaliteraliter, oh, sorry, if I had known you had an academic degree on metalmusicology, I would have listened to you. One can draw a straight line from Black Sabbath through stoner acts to grunge. It's really absurdly humorous (yet makes sense given the overall mindset which prevails amongst genre adherents) that one should call upon "the fundamentals of metal". The Bible sayeth...!

@Skald, while I'm not quite sure what you mean with "butching of the rhythm parts" and giving them "strange" progressions and stressing them, isn't that quite the point in rhythm music all the way down to jazz, to stress particular points in rhythm. And as for staccato, is Stravinsky's Le Sacre de Printemps metal now? The fact remains that if we use as the template the first bands that were classified "heavy metal" (Zep, Purple, Sabbath, Heep), we'd have to cast off a vast majority of today's metal... at least if we follow such narrow minded standards. And besides, for Frigg's sake, stop worshipping this pseudo-Platonic idealistic metal concept. Metal is just a word used to describe a subset of rhythm music.