[AdamCalifornia]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PWilson /img/forum/go_quote.gif How can you have Skid Row (basically glam), Soundgarden (grunge) and Tool (alterna-What) on your list, then question the inclusion of Queensryche? I admit Mikael's clean voice isn't that great. I'm just going on what I've heard and within the metal genre when I say I like his stuff.

Skid row is hard rock/metal. The problem is how much metal???

By the way, some do not consider Judas Priest as a metal band,
but this is insane.

Singers proposed on this thread by you guys are all Extreme Metal singers.
This assures purity, ie not 'a single ounce' of hard rocck, alt rock, prog rock, etc.

 

[japc]

Bah. Queensryche is Heavy Metal, and awesome by the way.

 

[roadtonowhere08]

Quote:

Originally Posted by japc /img/forum/go_quote.gif Bah. Queensryche is Heavy Metal, and awesome by the way.

Not to argue, but how do you figure?

When I think heavy metal, I think of songs like "Walk" and "Becoming" from Pantera. Simple song structure driven by drums and riffs. I am not slamming Queensryche in any way by saying they are not metal, in fact I think "Empire" is one of the best albums of the 90's, but I have never heard one of their songs that I thought could even be close to a heavy metal song.

I do have to say though, even though I view Pantera as pretty much a textbook definition of a heavy metal band, and one of the main driving forces of their music was drums, their mix of drums was pretty anemic compared to other bands with rather benign potency. I find it rather unfortunate since I really dug Vinnie Paul's style as a drummer (a big, burly, and hard hitting dude) in the band. To bad the studio power of his drums paled in comparison to his real live power.

 

[japc]

Quote:

Originally Posted by roadtonowhere08 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Not to argue, but how do you figure?

Must be the guessing finger

Quote:

When I think heavy metal, I think of songs like "Walk" and "Becoming" from Pantera. Simple song structure driven by drums and riffs. I am not slamming Queensryche in any way by saying they are not metal, in fact I think "Empire" is one of the best albums of the 90's, but I have never heard one of their songs that I thought could even be close to a heavy metal song.

When I think heavy metal I think "Run to the Hills" or "Painkiller". Shredding guitars, mid to up tempo galoping rhythm section, plenty of melody, breaks, ingenious soloing.

Have you ever heard "Queen of the Reich" or "Warning"?

 

[roadtonowhere08]

Quote:

Originally Posted by japc /img/forum/go_quote.gif When I think heavy metal I think "Run to the Hills" or "Painkiller". Shredding guitars, mid to up tempo galoping rhythm section, plenty of melody, breaks, ingenious soloing. Have you ever heard "Queen of the Reich" or "Warning"?

Therein lies the problem with me and this style of music (not artistically but categorically). There are two camps of people when it comes to creating genres: lumpers and creators. Lumpers like to have large, all encompassing genres of music. To them, heavy metal contains bands such as Iron Maiden, Black Sabbath, and Pantera. Then there are the creators. They have a genre for practically every band.

I tend to lean more toward the latter camp (but not to the degree of insanity of some I have read), so when I read your description of heavy metal and comapre it to mine, I imagine two distinct genres. Reading your description, I envision hard rock or metal, but not heavy metal. Some or most find it trivial and miniscule in differences with regards to categorization, but I find it very hard to put Queensryche and their two main influences, Judas Priest and Iron Maiden in the same genre as Pantera and their ilk. I have seen both genres live, and they are distinctly different in musical delivery. When I say Iron Maiden, I came home feeling like I saw a metal band. When I saw Pantera, I came home feeling like I saw a heavy metal band. The delivery and attitudes of both kinds are different.

Listening to older Queensryche, I feel like I am listening to a more Iron Maiden'ish band. Again, that is not heavy metal to me.

To me, there are three kinds of rock'ish music genres that are harder than rock, but not quite death metal:

Hard Rock - Ozzy
Metal - Iron Maiden, Judas Preist
Heavy Metal - Pantera

That is how I see it, skewer me if you like, but there is no way that Queensryche is in the same genre as Pantera.

 

[japc]

Quote:

Originally Posted by roadtonowhere08 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Therein lies the problem with me and this style of music (not artistically but categorically).

No worries, I (and most people I know) have those same kind of problems.

Quote:

Listening to older Queensryche, I feel like I am listening to a more Iron Maiden'ish band. Again, that is not heavy metal to me.

Of course it is, it is NWOBHM-ish.

Quote:

To me, there are three kinds of rock'ish music genres that are harder than rock, but not quite death metal: Hard Rock - Ozzy Metal - Iron Maiden, Judas Preist Heavy Metal - Pantera

Agreed if you switch this last two labels.

Quote:

That is how I see it, skewer me if you like, but there is no way that Queensryche is in the same genre as Pantera.

No, I agree, Queensryche is heavy metal like I used to listen to 20 years ago, Pantera is something groovy. I not visualize my heavy metal groovy.

But we digress. Let's leave the details aside.

 

[scytheavatar]

Quote:

Originally Posted by roadtonowhere08 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Therein lies the problem with me and this style of music (not artistically but categorically). There are two camps of people when it comes to creating genres: lumpers and creators. Lumpers like to have large, all encompassing genres of music. To them, heavy metal contains bands such as Iron Maiden, Black Sabbath, and Pantera. Then there are the creators. They have a genre for practically every band. I tend to lean more toward the latter camp (but not to the degree of insanity of some I have read), so when I read your description of heavy metal and comapre it to mine, I imagine two distinct genres. Reading your description, I envision hard rock or metal, but not heavy metal. Some or most find it trivial and miniscule in differences with regards to categorization, but I find it very hard to put Queensryche and their two main influences, Judas Priest and Iron Maiden in the same genre as Pantera and their ilk. I have seen both genres live, and they are distinctly different in musical delivery. When I say Iron Maiden, I came home feeling like I saw a metal band. When I saw Pantera, I came home feeling like I saw a heavy metal band. The delivery and attitudes of both kinds are different. Listening to older Queensryche, I feel like I am listening to a more Iron Maiden'ish band. Again, that is not heavy metal to me. To me, there are three kinds of rock'ish music genres that are harder than rock, but not quite death metal: Hard Rock - Ozzy Metal - Iron Maiden, Judas Preist Heavy Metal - Pantera That is how I see it, skewer me if you like, but there is no way that Queensryche is in the same genre as Pantera.

Queensryche's albums after Promised Land are certainly hard rock, but the ones before that are heavy/progressive metal. Operation: Mindcrime is one of the biggest progressive metal classics ever.

Your classification is screwed up. When I say heavy metal I am referring to the classical heavy metal ala Iron Maiden, Judas Priest, The Lord Weird Slough Feg. Pantera is groove metal, a crappy offshoot from thrash metal. 'Metal' itself is nothing more than a shortform for heavy metal.

 

[PWilson]

Quote:

Originally Posted by roadtonowhere08 /img/forum/go_quote.gif When I think heavy metal, I think of songs like "Walk" and "Becoming" from Pantera. Simple song structure driven by drums and riffs. I am not slamming Queensryche in any way by saying they are not metal, in fact I think "Empire" is one of the best albums of the 90's, but I have never heard one of their songs that I thought could even be close to a heavy metal song.

Simple song structure driven by drums is what defines heavy metal for you?

Quote:

Originally Posted by japc /img/forum/go_quote.gif When I think heavy metal I think "Run to the Hills" or "Painkiller". Shredding guitars, mid to up tempo galoping rhythm section, plenty of melody, breaks, ingenious soloing.

Quoted for truth.

As stated above, 'metal' is just short for 'heavy metal', which is the overarching net that gathers all metal groups together.

The mainstream public will label anything that's loud as metal. That's where all these references to AC/DC and whatnot must be coming from. Seriously, I read a Malaysian newspaper that referred to the Offspring as speed metal >_>

 

[roadtonowhere08]

I know my classification is screwed up in the traditional (and probably accepted) designations of genres and their applicable bands. When I think "heavy metal" I think "HEAVY METAL" and not NWOBHM-ish or 80's style "heavy metal". Again, probably goes against the grain of many, but the term is already dated and decidedly not "heavy" compared to modern standards according to those accepted designations that most follow.

PWilson: Perhaps that was a oversimplification on my part. Pantera is very straightforward in the approach in that the riffs and drums are hard, up front, and less progressive than say Iron Maiden or Queensryche. I think Pantera was more likely to build a song around a prominent riff style and work from there, kinda like Sabbath. Both bands (Pantera and Iron Maiden) feature solos, but the meat and potatoes are much different to me. When you couple that with my admittedly different view of music genres, you could say that what I previously said still reflects my opinion of what heavy metal sounds like.

 

[PWilson]

Well, with the amount of debate already going on regarding where bands are sitting on the rock/metal side of things I think bringing in an admittedly self derived classification and using that to take exceptions to posts is not really going to help (your inital post questioning japc's calling Queensryche heavy metal, which they certainly are, in the traditional sense of the definition).

I'm not going to tell you that you can't classify them that way, but on most forums, you'll find that heavy metal was the name given to the genre way back in the days when Sabbath was almost all that populated it, and when Priest and Maiden came along. 9 times out of 10, if someone's referring to heavy metal, one shouldn't assume they're talking about drum driven industrial/groove metal like Pantera or Fear Factory.

I do realise I quoted you out of context, though, and I apologise for that.

 

[Wmcmanus]

Janis Joplin. Nobody else has ever come close for me.

Of course, those were the days before we called it heavy metal. It didn't really have a name. But of course she wasn't afraid of the blues or even jazz (her explosive rendition of 'Summertime' comes to mind). But I think she was mostly heavy metal, at least in terms of attitude and character.

 

[roadtonowhere08]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PWilson /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well, with the amount of debate already going on regarding where bands are sitting on the rock/metal side of things I think bringing in an admittedly self derived classification and using that to take exceptions to posts is not really going to help (your inital post questioning japc's calling Queensryche heavy metal, which they certainly are, in the traditional sense of the definition). I'm not going to tell you that you can't classify them that way, but on most forums, you'll find that heavy metal was the name given to the genre way back in the days when Sabbath was almost all that populated it, and when Priest and Maiden came along. 9 times out of 10, if someone's referring to heavy metal, one shouldn't assume they're talking about drum driven industrial/groove metal like Pantera or Fear Factory.

Perhaps I should have qualified my position prior to my objection. I do not particularly like some of the current classifications, because it reflects more on the societal labels at the time rather than the artistic content, but it is what it is I guess.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PWilson I do realise I quoted you out of context, though, and I apologise for that.

No need for that

 

[Nocturnal310]

Metal is not Slipknot.

Metal is Iron maiden.

 

[AdamCalifornia]

1. Taken from a book about heavy Metal;

Quote:

... Metallica widened the focus of contemporary metal bringing on the road innovative Metal Hybrids like Faith No More, the Cult, Queensryche, and Soundgarden.

Note the wording Metal Hybrids.

2. Yesterday I went to a local store with rock, hard rock and metal cds.
I asked the guy who knows the Extreme Metal Section (Mercyful Face,
Morbid angel, and many others).

Me: Is Queensryche a heavy metal band?
Him: No it's not. It's a hard rock band.
Me: But there's some metal music in their compositions.
He: Yeah, they're hard rock/heavy metal band.
....

3. The AMG classification of Queensryche's albums contains the word 'rock'
eg prog rock, hard rock along with prog metal, heavy metal etc.
Let some of you go through all Queensryche's albums and check this.


What it means, using a new description, Queensryche is a
That's what many of us say Queensryche is a hard rock/heavy metal.
This means that they're not a pure heavy metal band. Their music is a fusion of
hard rock and heavy metal.
Yet another 'graphical' description: their metal music is contaminated with hard rock.

**********************************

Note above that Soundgarden is also a Metal Hybrid and that's why Chris Cornell
is on the poll.

See you on the

Metal Hybrid

side of the Moon

P.S.
The same applies to Skid Row, Scorpions and Tool on the poll.

 

[cerbie]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wmcmanus /img/forum/go_quote.gif Janis Joplin. Nobody else has ever come close for me.

Oh, so we can't decide who is a real scotsman, and now you want to turn it into arguing over who is a real Scotsman or Scotswoman? What, now we need it become, "the real Scotsperson," fallacy?

It's a genre that was defined much by feel (atmosphere and theme). Now we can go point out commonalities in the music that give that feel. But, it's a wide and muddy river. Unlike many genres, it denied banality of traditional popular music, but not specific types of composition, nor performance techniques.

Quote:

Originally Posted by japc /img/forum/go_quote.gif No, I agree, Queensryche is heavy metal like I used to listen to 20 years ago, Pantera is something groovy. I not visualize my heavy metal groovy.

Heh. Old guys

. I still needed booster seats twenty years ago, and finally got their EP just this year (boo to EMI remastering well-done albums, props for re-issuing the EP, so it's not crazy expensive).