okay well I pretty much cannot stand most if not all of that kind of music[ I completely grew out of it the summer after 7th grade, I'm in 9th now.]
and note that I think very few of those bands are decent but nowhere near great.
well heres the story: so I'm at school this morning and my friends and I were talking about music and shit, and one of my friends says that shitty bands like shipknot are more metal than pioneers such as maiden and priest. So I told him that he can shove his Nu metal and death/metalcore shit up his ass, cause that shit isn't even really metal; if metal at all. He said why not. I couldn't really think up a reason in time since the bell rang.

alright, onto my main question: Why do most of us true metal fans despise and say those genres aren't metal?( besides the clearly obvious reasons)

If the reasons are so clearly obvious then what is the problem?

Because those genres themselves aren't interesting to "us true metal fans."

Lots of metalcore bands and deathcore bands are metal and are featured on the archives. However, nu metal bares little resemblance to actual metal. Other than an occasional distortion guitar chiming in and producing some poorly written fragment of a riff, it really has little relation to metal.

The reason I hate it (nu metal/metalcore/deathcore) so much mostly because the music is just plain terrible, is also the fact that how ignorant, dumb and fucking lame their fans are.

He's right, and the NUH UH TRUE METAL ONLY dipshits are even more annoying because their goal is only one of constant "more metal than thou" one-upmanship and repeating what they saw somewhere on the internet. Slipknot's biggest influences were death and thrash metal bands of the 80s and early 90s; I could name specific bands but I don't have the time to get my copy of Choosing Death and waiting means risking this thread being locked. Guitarist Mick Thompson even has a Dawn of Possession tattoo on his arm. Apparent "nu" metal bands like Soulfly have not just the creative forces behind seminal bands behind them (Max Cavalera) but also contributions from other metal bands (Slayer, Napalm Death) and a more "classic" metallic sound.

People saying nu metal "bears little resemblance" to metal must be either deaf or in some kind of self denial, because all the elements are there: the instruments, the aggression, the distortion and the chuggy palm muted riffs. It boggles my mind how Alcest and Deep Purple can be considered "metal" but not nu metal. If anything, this should show that there's more than one road to metal. This song is more metallic than anything Alice in Chains has ever put out, yet metal fans have no problem with AiC and this band doesn't even consider itself "metal".

The definition of what's "metal" has constantly shifted over the years. Most people accept Black Sabbath and Deep Purple as hard rock or just rock but somehow they made their way into these archives. Sabbath sure as fuck didn't know about "heavy metal" when they were apparently playing it.

How is that not metal? It is a fusion of different metal genres.

Black Sabbath are very well accepted as being metal.



Hard to know being the first.



What?

Your edited post only confuses me more.

I didn't read this in my initial reading of the post, but here's something else I wanted to add. You're making a statement without knowing the reasoning behind it, and then go on to ask people on the internet on how to justify it and what you should say? How did you even arrive to the conclusion that numetal and deathcore "aren't" metal in the first place? How about thinking for yourself for a change? This is what happens when for whatever reason (crowdism, wannabe elitism), you accept something without knowing or even questioning the premise behind it.

Ive always hated how people say metalcore and deathcore werent metal because I think they have enough significant metal elements within them. But for Nu-metal I do agree. I feel Nu-metal lacks alot of metal elements other then the heavy sounding aspect. Just because someone uses a distorted guitar doesnt automaticaly make it metal just like just because some one plays a bass doesnt automaticaly make it jazz. I mean look at rappers like Necro. He has songs with instruments backing him but does that make him metal? Same with stuff like Limpbizkit, Korn, etc. I also think too many bands are labeled Nu-Metal for no reason. Like Negru_Vodka was saying about Slipknot and Soulfly. They actually have many metal elements within them but yet they are considered Nu-Metal.

Edit*
And for the record I hate Soulfy and Cant believe Max Cavalera is in that band. I also despise Slipknot.

Instead of wasting your time hating on music you hate oh-so much, why not just ignore and listen to TR00 MEHTULZ?

And I definitely understand about what the other guy was saying.. about how Nu-metal listeners will think that Iron Maiden, Priest, all that good stuff is light in comparison. But it's just no contest in reality.

Not deaf or in self denial. Some nu metal can be closer to metal, much of it is not however. How exactly is having the same instruments and distortion make you metal?

They don't have ENOUGH to be called metal though lol, they may have the odd element but that isn't enough to make them a metal band.

Maybe some places, but I rarely see much genuinely pigheaded trvekvlt behaviour.



If a band played banjo bluegrass but claimed influence from Morbid Angel, would they be death metal?



Most hardcore bands include guitar/bass/drum setup, aggression and chugging riffs. Are they metal, too?



Alcest aren't metal, but were black metal originally.



I don't see how that song is any more metallic than Them Bones, Dam That River or any other heavy AiC song. And KoRn may be spouting off "We're not metal, we're just our own genre!" but back in the day they were singing a different tune.

It's not just those things, it's the sound, the aggression and even the melodies used in riffs sometimes. Sometimes even the motivation behind the music is the same. I mean, funeral doom is pretty fucking different from the traditional perception of metal, so why not this? People accept Strapping Young Lad and Nevermore - Dead Heart in a Dead World but not bands labeled as "numetal". One scene in the documentary "Get Thrashed" that pissed me off was in the section briefly glossing over the rise of nummetal where they had a female DJ in her twenties saying "that's not metal" with an air of confidence. Oh, really? Who is she to say? People probably thought the same when bands like Hellhammer, Bathory, Possessed and Death were just coming out.



Sure, why not? I'm not referring to the mid 90s metalcore bands like Converge but more the metallic end of it like Hatebreed. Why should that be any less metal than Pantera or Machine Head?

Actually, the underground was pretty quick to embrace the likes of Hellhammer. Just like they were pretty quick to reject nu-metal. More than ten years on and it's still loathed, so I doubt it'll suddenly become as influential Hellhammer.

That must've been comical.

Perhaps instead of looking for answers on a forum, some good old introspection is called for. Why did you present a position you had no idea how to defend? Are you just blindly regurgitating the ideas of others? I would say also that if you've just recently abandoned metalcore and such for "real" heavy metal, you might be acting out of a need to react against it in order to affirm and justify this new musical identification. I did the same shit when I was young and into punk and my tastes changed to harder stuff... "NOFX? Fuck that skater shit... Discharge is real fuckin punk!" Eventually things balance out, and you come to appreciate everything in its place.

As far as the actual debate, it is obviously ridiculous, because black metal is the most metal of all metal, ever.

The problem is that Korn keep on saying that they're not metal but the media says they're metal and their fans think they are metal.

I can understand this too. By any margin a band like Slipknot with their double bass, downtuned guitars and fast songs will blow Priest and Maiden out of the water in terms of extremity and heaviness. Really, when you think about it, what's the heaviest Maiden song even? Powerslave? The songs on the first two were more aggressive and darker. Maybe it takes more than "heaviness" to make something "metal", but it's definitely not one single element because the mood of each metal style is completely different, yet they're still considered branches of the same tree.

There's more to metal than heaviness. If it was just about heaviness and extremity, we'd have nu-metal in here along with all sorts of grind, hardcore and electronica. Playing groove-style downtuned open string chugs has more in common with post-grunge than metal.