From time to time i've seen that sites such allmusic, Discogs etc. considers metal in all of it's forms just a style/subgenre of rock: http://www.allmusic.com/album/r1473529, http://www.discogs.com/Cannibal-Corpse-The-Bleeding/master/18281, i think that metal is a full genre, like blues, rock, hip hop, pop, dance... i want to know what ppl at metallum thinks, is metal a genre, or a style of pop/rock.

Metal is indeed a genre of it's own. It has it's own subculture, longevity, and many different styles from bands found accross the globe.


You also may want to read up on proper grammar there, dude.

Most places don't distinguish between rock, metal, and other genres of rock because it's an extremely diverse grouping with tons of genre mixing. I consider it a separate genre that evolved from another genre.

yeah, that's what i think, is like to pretend that rock with all it's subgenres stills a style of country or Blues, i don't know why is so hard for sites such allmusic or discogs see that

Both rock and metal are different genres with the same roots, the same as blues and jazz--same origins, completely different sounds.

What would be necesary for those at discogs to give metal the recognizement that it deserves.

Own genre.

Its own genre.

It always makes me laugh when some really extreme, blast beat laced, guttural filled band is labelled as 'Rock' on iTunes or some other DD or site.

Not to be a dick or overly simplistic, but does any metal heavier than thrash even sound remotely like rock? I mean, an 8 minute dsbm track with totally unconventional song structure can be traced back to rock, but people can be traced back to monkeys. Once something evolves so far from the origin, it eventually breaks off entirely.

So my two cents is that NWOBHM and doom may be rock derivatives, but black and death have several layers of influence between them and rock and are therefore totally separate.



And this, so bad. How can itunes be so damn oblivious? They have black and detah collections, so why don't they at least call it "metal." If Disturbed is called metal, Guttural Secrete sure as hell should be too.

Seperate genres. I consider rock and metal to be cousins, not the same genre. They mix influences at times, and they both came from some of the same roots, but they both grew up separately.

People keep saying this and it blows my mind. METAL CAME FROM ROCK, they're not cousins like Jazz and Blues, genres that grew alongside each other. It's an evolution from rock the same way rock is an evolution from blues and R&B.

Rock and metal are one and the same.

It's a bit of both, as that is the nature of music.

Music does not "evolve." The use of that term, particularly in a manner suggesting linearity, is just as incorrect as the idea of applying it to societies. Music might be better understood by reducing it down to its basic unit - the musician. At that level, it's about what the musician hears, and plays, and considers their identity. What an individual decides to play might derive from influences, peers, where their talent lies, their environment and, foremost, what they might consider worthwhile or aurally enjoyable. At no point are any of these factors based on any single driving force - including through one specific conception of genre. In a way, metal developed from rock, but that is an ongoing process involving individual musicians having the conditions of their music shaped by rock-based influences. It's certainly not a one-way street either; metal-based influences can be just as powerful on rock musicians... rock develops from metal. It's one reason why there are hybrids, and there will be hybrids in the future, and it's also why there's diversity in general within those styles of music.

To answer the original question: it depends who you ask. My own personal thoughts on this is that it seems most musicians and fans who feel akin to either of the genre conventions feel more comfortable suggesting that the two are separate, but equal, in the amount of influence that they might have on one another. With music there's also a tendency to follow either the extreme of broadness or the extreme of narrowness in defining styles of music. In that case, you will find that people are more close to call everything under rock or distinctly removed from rock (or even other styles inherent within rock or metal). It might be more appropriate to suggest that they tend to operate in tandem... not as cousins or children, but as an intimate couple (sharing the bed with punk and others).

Back in the day metal was fairly interchangeable with rock music, but today obviously it is it's own genre especially considering the more extreme varients of metal that couldn't be mistaken for rock. Both rock and metal started with the same roots but branched off one point growing farther apart. Some metal may be similar to rock, but metal is metal.

Metal branched off from rock, but I believe it has evolved enough to be considered it's own genre, but what the Hell do I know?

I have noticed this way of thinking (that metal is a totally separate genre to rock) more and more in recent years, and I don't understand/agree with it. I suspect the "genre tag" of the mp3 age may have had more than a slight influence in this.

Rock is an umbrella term, of which metal is a sub-division (yes, a very evolved and developed one). Rock itself is a sub-division of "pop music" in its broadest sense. The sub-genres get more relevant the closer you get to them; to the cardigan-clad, pipe-smoking classical music buff, there is not much distinction between The Beatles and Bolt Thrower (just as, to the "average" metal fan, there is not much distinction between Bach and Wagner).

The specific area of "rock" that people nowadays tend to classify as the genre "Rock" usually refers to either AOR or Hard Rock.

It depends on what you understand by "rock".

Most people here seem to associate the term "rock" with classic rock/hard rock, you know... old-fashioned upbeat guitar based party music. If that's what you mean by "rock" then metal is definitely something apart.

But in the more general definition of "rock music". It refers to an extremely diverse family of related genres (or even "related smaller families of genres") that evolved from 50's rock and roll and have an enormous variation in sounds, structures, lyrical themes, associated subcultures, etc... with only a few things in common (electric guitar is usually the main instrument; it's more "intense" or "noisy" than most older forms of music like classical, blues or traditional pop; yet it usually puts a bigger emphasis on melody than the more modern R&B-derived genres like hip-hop, dance pop, etc...). In short it refers to usually heavily melodic and relatively intense guitar-based music that branched from 50's rock n' roll.

By this definition, everything under the categories of classic rock, pscyh rock, metal, punk, hardcore, progressive, alternative (among others) can be considered "rock music". Chuck Berry, The Beatles, Dead Kennedys, King Crimson, Blind Guardian, Mogwai, The Locust, Anaal Nathrakh, The Beach Boys, Jimmy Eat World and Boris... they are all considered "rock bands" by this definition.

Do you guys consider "punk" to be a rock subgenre or a genre all its own?

Yes, Punk (or "Punk Rock") is a sub-division of Rock.

Ferturi's excellent analysis is a better, more detailed version of what I was trying to say. I'm glad someone else thinks the same way I do.

Well yeah you'll say that, I'm just trying to make a point here.

I pretty much agree with you and Ferturi.

If rock and metal are two completely separate genres, then what is the difference between a "rocker" and a "metalhead"?

This might be the dumbest thing I have seen on any forum in my entire life

I have my own categorization system and "metal" is a separate genre from "rock". I have also separated "Alternative rock" from rock as well.
Therefore three albums under the broad "rock" genre will be put into three different folders.
AC/DC - Back in Black -> rock
WASP - The Crimson Idol -> metal
David Bowie - "Heroes" -> alternative


all punk goes to the "Alternative" section.

i think this whole thing has two separate contexts that should be kept separate:
a) the timeline of genres' development. classical -> blues -> metal etc. that defines where a genre came from; its evolution
b) the grouping of existing forms of music. classical / blues / metal etc. that defines what a genre sounds like

Metal started off as just a heavier version of rock and eventually became more and more distance from the original genre. You can back track and undo things in evolution, it's still evolution. It distanced itself and eventually became a separate entity(Thrash, Black, Death), but their are middle grounds along the way(IE Sabbath, NWOBHM, Stoner Metal) exemplifying the removal of definitive rock elements(Sabbath>Priest>NWOBHM>Thrash>Death Metal). The inclusion of other elements for example, Hardcore Punk can just be related to natural events(like say an Ice age) which throw an unexpected and alien element in the original ooze. If that means throwing in more Rock influence, like say with Stoner Metal, then so be it.

I define "rock music" as having a particular set of sonic characteristics:

1. Drums emphasizing the backbeat on 2 and 4 (this is the most important by far)
2. Use of scales and harmonies derived from a mixture of country music and blues
3. Mostly in pop song forms such as verse/refrain and AABA

By these criteria, I would say that early metal (through the late 80s) is rock music - classic metal, doom metal, and thrash metal almost always use a backbeat and verse/refrain type musical forms, and with the exception of some of the more extreme thrash bands (Toxik, Kreator) most of the bands in these styles utilized blues-based riffs and harmonies. Black Sabbath and Judas Priest used blues progressions all the time on their 70s albums.

In contrast, I would say that since the late 80s metal has been diverging from rock music. Increasingly, extreme metal bands have been removing the essential elements of rock from their music. Backbeats are quite rare in black and death metal, have been supplanted in importance by blast beats and other rhythms that tend to stress the downbeat rather than the off-beats. Harmonies can't be directly tied to the blues anymore, as they've become more and more chromatic and less anchored in specific keys. Finally, the old pop song forms have been more or less dispensed with - very few death or black metal bands use standard verse/chorus forms (though there are some exceptions, like Bloodbath's "Eaten").

I would say that "progressive/avant-garde" rock has been diverging from rock in this same way. King Crimson's evolution is a good example of this. On their first few albums, almost all the songs have verse/chorus forms, bluesy solos, and backbeats. But on later songs, like "Larks' Tongues in Aspic Part 1," they don't use any of those elements. So their music "diverged" from rock, too.

Punk is definitely still rock, as punk bands still use backbeats all the time, and typically also use verse/chorus forms as well.

Whee!

I believe Metal has evolved into a genre with it's smaller sub genres.

I used to include Metal as a sub-genre of Rock. But that was in the late 70's / early 80s timeframe.

If metal is rock, then rock is blues. And blues is jazz. And jazz is ragtime.

You can see where I'm going with this.

Genre of its own. Metal is to rock as rock is to blues. /thread

"Both" is the correct answer. There is metal that is rock'n'roll, and there is metal that is just metal.

I'd say it's its own genre, but there is a lot of influences from rock. It's hard to tell.

saying metal is a subgenre of rock is like saying rock is a subgenre of blues

Metal really is rock. The hardest, most abrasive possible form of rock, but rock nonetheless. Rock is drum and guitar-based music, centered around the electric guitar. Metal seems to fit this description perfectly.

However, it should be treated as it's own genre when it comes to playing it in public or stocking it at a music store, because it is so much more abrasive than the rest of rock that it would be cruelty to the rock fans who accidentally listen to it and cruelty to the metal artists who get labeled wrong and subsequently bashed for their music. The same would apply for punk, alternative, grunge, emo, etc.

Labels serve conversational purposes of cuing us into particular qualities that are relevant for the purposes of that conversation. Because purposes vary, labels vary in meaning among contexts. When I am telling an ignorant adult (who only knows about the most popular kinds of music) what music I like, I would not be lying to say rock. When I'm telling a fan of metal what kind of music I like, it would be a lie to say rock.

For certain intents and purposes, where specificity is not crucial, metal is rock. For more scholarly or particularized concerns, metal is not rock; in such contexts, the terms have divergent meanings -- they come apart, and neither belongs to the other.

If I am discussing music with a traditional symphony composer, I might cite certain death metal acts as examples of atonal or serialist composition in pop music. That is, for those purposes, death metal will count as pop -- even the most cacophonous, extreme, and obscure death metal!

The rules governing our use of these terms, dictating proper and improper use, are considerably more complex than any presentation here gives them credit. But the point I'm making here is, I hope, a modest one: Genre tags have different conditions of applicability in different contexts, though probably some necessary conditions that do not vary among contexts. In some contexts, metal is rock (i.e. it is true to say, in such contexts, "metal is a form of rock"); in others, such as on a _metal forum_, it would be misleading and probably false to call metal rock. There is no absolute standard or measuring stick, and this variance thesis is only reason counting against such absolutism. The historic malleability of meaning over time is another important one...

But blues, country and pop also are drum and electric guitar based music that fits these description perfectly, by your logic that means that rock is nonetheless a form of... country? no way, to say that metal is rock because have guitar and drums is a complete fail, since nearly all the music genres that are under the "popular music that isn't classical or experimental" umbrella are centered around electric guitar and drums.

In the last month, I've sent like fourteen mails to allmusic complaining about listing all the forms of metal under the pop/rock genre, but nothing have happened.

I tend to think in the theory that metal evolved form blues rock(still somewhat rock), so yes, it has rock influences, but that doesn't make it a sub genre. Of course the genres are similar, but there's a big difference between metal and rock. They seem to share sounds a lot, and evolve from each other, but they are two different forms of music. You can't call an extreme metal fan a rock fan, because that would completely misrepresent the kind of music they like, so regardless of debatable origins, I'd say that at this day and age, metal and rock are two seperate genres.

It's all about terminology. I agree that rock is no more different from blues than metal is from rock, musically speaking.
But "blues" didn't become an umbrella term for all music that evolved from it. The term "rock" definitely did, just like the term "R&B" became an umbrella term for the more dance-oriented music that evolved from early 50's Rythm & Blues (which coincidentially is very close to the original Rock n' Roll). Funk, Disco, Soul and even modern hip-hop influenced dance pop are categorized under the R&B umbrella, just like Metal, Alternative, Punk and Progressive all fall under the "rock" umbrella. People refer to them that way, and that's the way genre names are born.

Still, that doesn't take away from the fact that metal is a full and very diverse musical genre with its own subgenres (maybe even bigger than some "full" genres). And of course, it's better to just enjoy the music regardless of how it's categorized.

Country is centered around guitar in general (usually acoustic) and/or vocals. Pop these days is centered around synths, rapping, and other cliches.

Nonetheless, country came before rock, so it is not really a derivative of rock. Pop is a derivative of rock, but it has thrown away too many of rock's characteristics to be under that umbrella anymore. Even if these are both drum and guitar based, they came before rock, so they don't fit in with rock. With that in mind, metal still fits the bill.



Wonderful. Absolutely wonderful. This explains music.

Not Metal:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vBGOrI6yBk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hZXxrzsQOA


Metal:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3wdY14Ppyk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AURogwvCH_I


There is more to Metal then being loud and abrasive. Metal is its own genre. some bands may be more influenced by rock music, but there are others that derive greater influence from Classical, Opera, Blues, Jazz, Folk, Tribal, Electronic, etc. With all these influences but still retaining sound aesthetics that allow it to be distinguished as Metal, I dont feel it is possible to simply call it a sub genre of Rock.