I promise, I’m not trolling!

So, I’m house sitting for a friend, and the pets can’t talk, so I’ve been listening to stuff and thinking.

I’ve had a “hair metal” playlist going today. It’s called that because that’s the term that amazon uses for it. But, most of tracks on it aren’t metal at all. Like, “more than words” by extreme. Great song, but not a metal song. “Signs” by Tesla. Same thing; awesome fucking song, but not a metal song.

So I started running through things in my head. Once metal started becoming newcomer heavier, and more extreme, it feels like the goalposts shifted.

It got me thinking about what people think is and isn’t metal, vs what people would call hard rock.

An example is AC/DC a long time favorite of metal heads everywhere. But are they really metal, or just the best hard rock band ever? Okay, ignore the “best” part of that, that’s my bias.

But! Another band that writes similar songs, isn’t any softer, and is often *heavier- than AC/DC is often reviled by metal heads. Yes, I’m talking about nickelback. No, I’m not trolling (though I used to troll with that on reddit lol. I respect the people on this C/ too much to do that here).

So, what’s the line? What makes a band metal vs hard rock. I’m not talking sub genres here, like death vs sludge or whatever, just the general heading of “metal”. What is it that makes a band metal instead of just hard rock?

I don’t have a firm line. Metal is like porn for me, “I know it when I hear it”.

Here’s some bands I’ve heard called metal that I think are either hard rock, or even just plain rock. Aerosmith, Def Leppard, some of KISS, Led Zeppelin, Extreme, AC/DC. I’ve heard all of those called metal bands, but they don’t “feel” metal to me.

There’s some bands that definitely aren’t metal, but are heavier than some of those bands. Fucking Nirvana could be heavy as hell, despite not being metal, and most of their albums were way heavier than most of Aerosmith’s.

Then, back to “hair” metal bands. You’ve got stuff like Poison that are really just glam rock on maybe their first album and go into hard rock for the rest, but still get tagged as hair metal because so much of hair metal was glam rock dialed up.

Then you’ve got Ratt, who made some fucking great blues metal and blues rock. Those two bands are miles apart from each other, other than being from the same era and doing the whole hair&makeup thing. Cinderella, another perfect example because, like Ratt, they are definitely metal (imo), but not heavy metal. They’re not really glam either, other than the way they dressed in the eighties.

So, what’s y’alls line? Do you even have a hard line where things just aren’t metal at all? If so, what is it? Anyone out there that holds the “anything that isn’t death or black isn’t real metal” view?

I’m curious as hell how this C/ views it because most of the posts here are fucking excellent, and there’s rarely any trolling or fuckery :)

  • jeffw@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Hair metal/glam metal is tricky because a lot of it has to do with image, as well as sound, with the evolution stemming from earlier stuff like New York Dolls.

    I wouldn’t call Nickelback particularly heavy.

    And yeah, grunge is heavy. Nirvana is fairly light for grunge (save some of the stuff on Bleach where you have the Melvins’ drummer and a lot of heavier stuff going on). I wouldn’t call it metal, but I’d say it’s heavy.

    Edit: I’ll also say that I think some of it has to do with the time. A lot of what Zeppelin was doing influenced later metal bands. Maybe they weren’t as heavy as Sabbath, but just as influential

    • southsamurai@sh.itjust.worksOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      Yeah, I think that’s why “hair metal” is such a weird thing. Pretty much every other genre of metal is defined by the music itself, or at least partially defined that way. But HAIR was so much about anyone with a lot of actual hair dressing up in a gaudy way and being as much a visual show as anything about the music itself.