I think in the beginning things were very interchangeable with rock.

I mean you can consider The Stooges to be either punk or rock and you can say that Judas Priest and Black Sabbath were rock or heavy metal. Back then there wasn't enough bands to actually create a true identity with the sound. However with the various movements things changed and identities were formed which I feel was around 1982-1984. With punk we have bands playing insanely fast like Koro, Poison Idea, DRI, and Agnostic Front as well as crust and d-beat bands like Discharge, Anti-Cimex, Amebix and Antisect. With metal we have the beginning of extreme metal with Hellhammer, Slayer, Sepultura, Celtic Frost and Metallica which started to pick up the pace and get faster. And then as metal became more and more extreme we have this forming of punk and metal which turned into crossover and metalcore as well as extreme metal genres like death and black metal which have their own unique sounds.

While punk and metal may have roots to rock they gained their own identities and eventually broke off. You can always go back and see where it started from but the way these genres were created was a bunch of kids who didn't want to play the stuff before them and wanted it heavier, faster and more in-your-face. Metal and punk, a success story for young kids rising and succeeding in creating something that is there own. Who would have thought.

Country is focused in electric/acoustic guitar and drums, and so does blues, among many others. pop music didn't came from rock, it came from rock & roll, from wich rock music comes from too, i think people like you is the reazon why metal haven't got it's place yet.

Just when I thought ma forums couldn't fail any harder...

Pop predates rock'n'roll. Pop arose as soon as music could be recorded and sold. Rock came from pop and everything else around at the time.

Yes, metal is a form of rock and that includes black metal, deathgrind and whatever. The problem with people's reasoning in this thread is the idea of metal divorcing itself from the mothergenre (=rock). However, what exactly is that mothergenre? If early the Swans, Frank Zappa, Henry Cow and the whole rock in opression-scene, Faust, Can,Neu!, Captain Beefheart in his Trout Mask Replica era, King Crimsons weirder stuff, Popol Vuh and a shitload of other acts are labelled as rock-and they are-, why shouldn't metal-bands be? Metal is generally-outside of stuff like drone and some other stuff-much closer to the original rock'n'roll aesthetic of physical and ass-kicking music than a shitload of music labelled rock. It also uses the same type of instrumentation and dynamics (admittedly pushed to the extreme quite often) *stereotypically* associated with rock...

I suspect that the people who co-sign this stuff either have a very limited understanding of what type of music that is labelled rock or are pretentious dudes who see their favourite metal-musicians as the reincarnation of Wagner, Paganini or Beethoven...

I think that metal is a form of rock that started to separate istelft from rock in the mid eighties,and derived it own subculture,genres and such,but i think that still is rock rooted.Don´t know about black metal that much because i don´t like it,but black metal itself have separated a lot to metal like say,Iron Maiden,Metallica or Accept and if you didn´t know about music genres don´t think you woud notice that both are metal.



I kind of agree, i specially dislike when some metalheads are disrespectful to rock because is "mainstream" or because is about "partying" and whatnot.Unconventional structures were used since King Crimson and before ,besides a lot of death metal,etc still uses popular music structure (verse,chorus,verse),i mean.You don´t have to like rock,but i fail to understand why some even seem to be annoyed with people relating rock to metal.

In my opinion they are not the same,and metal is obiously not a mere subgenre of rock, but still aren´t completely separated.Rock is metal´s daddy.

Your reasoning goes nowhere, starting with the fact that metal didn't evolved solely from rock, it takes elements prominently from blues, folk, and classical just for mention some. If you think that metal definitivelly is rock just because it took elements from it, then better if you think that rock in all it's forms stills a sub-genre of blues, or one who have never diverged from country music at all.



Personally i don't think that anybody can compare any metal musician with a classical composer, because the sound is too diferent. what is true is that metal is one if not the most technically advanced genre, the one who pushes musical boundaries the most, and one of the most creative genres out there.

Rock itself took elements of blues,jazz folk and classical before metal,like King Crimson or Led Zeppelin,and i think that King Crimson is much more influenced by jazz and classical,and Led Zeppelin by blues and folk than most metal bands,at least the ones that paved the way,that doesnt´make themselves blues or folk or whatever,they are mostly rock bands.In fact the first metal bands,with the exception of Black Sabbath (wich still was strongly blues influenced) where starting to separate those early blues rock traces.

Metal came mostly from the blues rock/hard rock/psychedelic (wherever you want to call it) boom from the late 60´s.I think that classical musical influence is merely in the surface,as is not esential in metal.Whoever,i can safely say that all metal bands from the earliest 70´s (wich still were between the rock and metal line) to the nwobhm (who along with Motorhead,mixed a little punk within) were mostly influenced by rock,not much by blues (more like blues rock).As much as it seems to upset some,metal is obiously derived from rock,and is a form of popular music aswel.

"Your reasoning goes nowhere, starting with the fact that metal didn't evolved solely from rock, it takes elements prominently from blues, folk, and classical just for mention some. If you think that metal definitivelly is rock just because it took elements from it, then better if you think that rock in all it's forms stills a sub-genre of blues, or one who have never diverged from country music at all."

I'd say that rock divorced itself from rock'n'roll/50's R&B in the mid-late 60's when it started to incorporate elements from jazz, classical, folk, "world music", country, avant-garde etc. Basically, rock itself is a hybrid genre-metal is no difference in that regard; I'd argue that metal as a whole is closer to the pre-diverse form of rock'n'roll than a lot of non-metal rock is, if only because it still largely utilize the guitar/bass/drums setup. And yes, blues and country do that too but they did not grow out of rock which metal very obviously did...



Personally i don't think that anybody can compare any metal musician with a classical composer, because the sound is too diferent. what is true is that metal is one if not the most technically advanced genre, the one who pushes musical boundaries the most, and one of the most creative genres out there.[/quote]

In some aspects it is, in some other-such as instrumentation and embracing new technology-it's not. The thing is that metal is so clearly defined by it's instrumentation and emphasis on the electric guitar-far more so than other forms of rock which can use, say, a piano as a lead instrument-that metal by default can not push the boundaries in some areas since the music would not be recognizable as metal if it did...

Early metal was very much like rock, and I think they could be called rock (think evolution, where "proto-metal" would be a transitional species). However, metal nowadays is really diversified. In my mind: rock = country + blues; metal = rock + classical. Newer metal subgenres are really metal + whatever genre now.

Even the nwobhm and many 80´s heavy metal still had a lot of rock to be said that it separated,i think that heavy metal,in the tradtional sense,is a form of rock,then with the subgenres,is not only that it started to get heavier and shit,but also took different influences,thrash and death metal being influenced by hardcore,etc then the "rock" sound started to get lost.Most metal today is very different to how it was in the 80´s anyway.

Personally,i think it was better when it was rock influenced.

More traditional styles of Metal can still be called Rock music, but extreme Metal really evolved away from being Rock. It would be ridiculous to call bands like Pink Floyd, King Crimson, or Yes "Blues", and it would be ridiculous to call bands like Emperor, Weakling, Timeghoul, and dISEMBOWELMENT "Rock".

As many people have posted already, metal obviously evolved from rock, the terms being somewhat interchangable in the early days. However, metal's come a long way since then and extreme metal has little if anything in common with rock, except for the fact that they use the same musical instruments (in most cases).

For me though, where the real difference lies is in the mentality, or rather the attitude of the genre. There is a metal community. There isn't a rock community. At least not one as coherent and enduring as the metal one.

I think that reflects in the bands' views of their own genre. Metal artists (especially underground ones) often do live shows wearing t-shirts of other underground bands they like. There is this sense that they are part of something bigger than themselves. Whereas, in rock, it's every band for itself. Have you ever seen rock bands wear t-shirts of underground or less known rock bands? It seems to me that every rock band that has come along in the past few decades has just been trying to be the next Zeppelin. Namely, they have the rockstar attitude and they are far removed from their fans and peers. It's a very egocentric genre generally. (Not that metal bands don't want to be successful, but the measure of success and the emphasis placed on it is far less relevant that in rock)

As far as fans are concerned, fanboyism tends to be way more prevalent in rock. Most rock fans I know listen to less than 10 bands but they know every song and all the lyrics by them. Metalheads, at least in my experience, tend to be more diverse in their musical tastes and they often listen to hundrends of bands throughout the metal spectrum. (and outside of it for that matter)

Rock is very broad. I consider metal to be a genre of rock, not sub-genre. Generally because rock is not a genre of its own. Think of it as, punk is rock, metal is rock, soft rock is rock, maybe even pop etc... Metal is in a way different because it is more extreme and differs in musical style. Metal has its own sound. It is not just a guitar, drums, bass, vocals etc... But has its own way of making music with those traditional rock instruments. But no matter what, everything rock/metal related is part of rock n roll. I think metal is rock, but at the same time different. It's like a yes and a no, mostly yes though. Metal also has its own sub-genres, which is why probably is considered its own genre. I think it's better then any other rock genre in my opinion.\m/_ (o.o) _\m/

so you consider rock to be a genre of blues?

Ok, so then you are using Rock the same way these mp3 sites use it, which is basically a general meaningless title given because they are too ignorant to bother categorizing music properly.

Its the same as calling anything that comes out of Africa "Afropop" The term is not a genre but a general term used for all African popular music.
See article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_popular_music

At least Amazon I have noticed has started listing Metal bands as "Hard Rock & Metal" still not correct but its better then it was before.

This is definitely not "Classic Rock":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdx1oLZurkc

Actually, that is how everyone uses rock:As an umbrella term that can include everything from a blues-rock band like Rolling Stones playing a blues-based three-chord rocker to a prog-rock band like Emerson, Lake&Palmer playing a classical-inspired twenty minute suite with no guitars in sight to a noise-rock band like early the Swans beating on metal and chanting over feedback.

Calling rock a subgenre of blues doesn't make sense on any level since blues is EXTREMELY rigidly defined in terms of what type of chord-progression, tonal language and even performance style you can use and still be classified in the genre 'blues'. A lot of jazz-musicians did blues as a song-form and utilized its tonal- and intervallic cliches but noone would say that they belonged to the *genre* blues. Same with country even if it's a bit less rigid I guess in terms of progressions and stuff.

Since metal grew out of rock *and* rock is used as an umbrella term that covers noise, kraut, prog, avantgarde, jazz-rock (NOT fusion which falls under the jazz-umbrella-I'm talking Blood, Sweat&tears or Colosseum here), why the hell should metal be an exception?

I think that's a pretty good way to put it. Metal is not rock but it came from rock.

The topic was not about that, it was asking if Metal was a genre. But to answer your question no Metal should not be an exception, all genre's should be labeled correctly.

Of course Metal and rock are the same genre. Nickleback is my favourite soft metal band.

OK, I haven't read the whole topic. I consider metal as a genre of rock, divided into its own subgenres. The reason is pretty simple: the structure and instruments used in metal are the same as in rock.

Lots of black metal bands use the verse-chorus-verse-chorus formula, for example late 90's Marduk.

To those who say metal is to rock what rock is to blues, I'd like to remind that there is no difference between rock'n'roll and rhythm & blues. The label r'n'r was used for the White bands, while R&B was used for the Black bands - but they basically played the same music. Compare Little Richard to Jerry Lee Lewis, for instance.

Besides, there are lots of metal songs which sound like rock in terms of tempo and chords: "Lost Wisdom" from Burzum, "Mourning Soul" from Absurd, "Blood is thicker than Water" from Impaled Nazarene...

The reason that metal is a genre is just as simple as any other genre being a genre but obviously that's something you fail to understand because every genre has rules that separate x genre from y and rock has different rules than metal

Also lots of sludge and post-metal bands 'sound like rock' too what's your point?

Rock is too way generic to lump Metal into it as a subgenre. Metal is an independent entity nowadays. Probably when Zeppelin was considered 'metal'/hard rock or when Scorpions and Sabbath were born they could be named as rock bands, but metal has evolved so much that I think it's wrong to minimalize it to a mere subgenre.

I haven't really given it a second thought as to mp3 labelling. I'm not a perfectionist unless it's my own self-made music so I concentrate on listening to the songs/albums more than finding its non-aesthetical weaknesses.
I liken it to EXIF code on digital cameras, sure it helps, but if you miss the picture completely and only focus on the settings then it's already become a lost work of art to the viewer.

Please explain the ''rules'' of rock.

Rock isn't riff-oriented. Rock guitars play melodies or bar chords instead of riffs. There is a greater emphasis on vocals and lyrics. Rock drums aren't usually as frenetic, providing the beat and not much else.

There is a lot of riff-oriented rock. Rolling Stones and all bands along those lines being famous examples that I doubt anyone would call metal.
There are entire subgenres of rock where lyrics and vocals aren't strongly emphazised at all .A good example being the instrumental subgenre of surf-rock genre in the 60's (Dick Dale, Link Wray etc.) or shoegazer where lyrics are often very difficult to make out. Prog-rock has complex, busy drums that do far more than provide a basic beat-that's a subgenre of rock with litterally hundreds of bands.

Listen to Led Zeppelin.

You heard it here first, ladies and gentlemen, The Beatles were pioneers of heavy metal.

Using riffs isn't the same as riff-oriented. Any genre of music can use them, but only a handful are based solely around them.

With blues rock,rock became pretty much riff oriented,if you don´t think that Led Zeppelin,Cream,AC/DC,Deep Purple or Thin Lizzy aren´t riff oriented,guess we have a different idea of what is.

It doesn't matter what instruments they use, the purpose of genre's is to categorize groups with stylistic similarities. If the instruments defined the genre then Jazz, Country, Reggae, Blues and Disco would all be Rock as well. There may be some bands that blur the lines between Rock and Metal, but for the bands that are purely Rock or purely Metal have a sound that is very distinct.

If i decipher well what you tried to say above, i would tell that you're clueless, early rock didn't took elemets of jazz, classical, avant garde or world music, it just took elements of country, blues and soul, the difrence is that when rock appeared, nobody was presumptuos or had a problem with looking at it as a genre, a problem that people like you clearly have.


all forms of popular music utilizes the guitar/bass/drums setup, and metal didn't grow up solely from rock, that argument is useless.



Implying that rock, blues or jazz embraces more new technologies.

Anaal Nathrakh is clearly a rock band.

Why not, you're using the same nonsensical logic when you call metal a sub-genre of rock, today's metal playing techniques such as blast beats, and an emphazis in guitars and music rather than vocal armonies are clearly diferent from the vocal melody with backbeat focused rock music.



Call noise music a sub-genre of rock is a complete fail, nearly as big as to call avant-garde music (that appeared in the 40s) a sub-genre of rock music, only hibrid genres like experimental rock or noise rock can be considered near to rock, in fact, avant garde metal, having discarded all the elements that defines rock music, is way more closer to original avant-garde than anything else.

It's definitely its own style and genre, thats readily apparent at first listen. More of my two cents.

Your problem is that you don't make a distinction between rock'n'roll and rock. In modern terminology, the former is a pretty specific form of music , the latter an umbrella term. It became an umbrella term by the mid-60's when it started to incorporate elements outside of the ones that appeared in rock'n'roll.


all forms of popular music utilizes the guitar/bass/drums setup, and metal didn't grow up solely from rock, that argument is useless.[/quote]

Yes, it did. It grew up SOLELY from rock and just pushed aspects to the extreme, I don't see any valid argument against that.



Implying that rock, blues or jazz embraces more new technologies.[/quote]

No, I'm not implying that at all. There are other genres, you know?

[/quote]

But all rock-music isn't backbeat focused whereas blues *is* much more strictly defined. If genres like prog-rock, noise-rock and kraut-rock can fall under the *umbrella* rock, wh ycan't metal? That's what this thread is asking.



Call noise music a sub-genre of rock is a complete fail, nearly as big as to call avant-garde music (that appeared in the 40s) a sub-genre of rock music, only hibrid genres like experimental rock or noise rock can be considered near to rock, in fact, avant garde metal, having discarded all the elements that defines rock music, is way more closer to original avant-garde than anything else.[/quote][/quote]

LOL, I know that. I was referring to noise4-rock, avantgarde-rock, jazz-rock etc. If they are subgenres of rock, why not metal? ¤Why is this so hard to get?

rock riffs and rock song structure not all that hard to understand

So by that logic, would this be rock and not metal?