why would someone dig up this thread? There is clearly a metal and rock education sticky up top that basically tells you the difference between the two

Some metal can be quite slow. Check out Electric Wizard and the Melvins.

I'm going to go with those saying that metal is defined by 'heaviness'. To be a metal band, you've got to have something more extreme than simple rock and roll: instruments, vocals, lyrical subjects, etc. That's why Black Sabbath is a metal band, and AC/DC isn't.

It doesn't have to be darker to be metal. Power metal is not really dark, but then, rock doesn't sing about battles and dragonslaying :)

simpa in oder 4 a bad 2 b metul thar has 2 be screaming in it. thar4 black sabbath n metallica r not metul thar alternative.

its music >_>

Form vs. Function question
 

WHAT!?! You mean Led Zeppelin is no longer considered metal?!? And for a moment I was thinking, "Hey! I like Stairway to Heaven! Maybe I *DO* like metal music!"

No, but seriously, I've been reading this thread to learn more about metal music vs. rock because, as I've discussed with The Abominable Homan, metal music usually makes me cower under a table and so I don't get to hear the whole impact of the songs. Thus I have never tried to understand the genre fully. I am wondering several things about metal music vs. rock:

(1) If it *is* the emotion that metal elicits that defines it as metal vs. rock, what is that emotion for most people? A zest for, or welcoming of, the awful realities of life/death? Is metal kind of an auditory Halloween in which people work through mortality by appearing to embrace death as a way of dealing with it? (By the way, I liked the description someone had of metal as music that makes older people look at you like you are the spawn of the devil).

(2) What other genres besides metal deal with these themes (death/destruction), and would/could those songs be considered "metal" based on theme alone? For example, if I played a metal-sounding song with lyrics about butterflies touching my arm like the fingers of a lover, would the song still be metal because it *sounded* like metal, or would it just be a spoof of metal? Or, on the other hand, can a sweet-sounding song about something horrendous (that shocks my mother-in-law) still be metal because of the theme? Those, by the way, are *my* favorite types of songs...the ones the subtly demolish people's most cherished traditions or conceptions.

My general question here is how much of the definition of "genre" such as "metal" vs. "rock" is based on the sound, and how much is based on the content? From your thread it sounds as if you have varied opinions as to whether form or function is more important for classifying songs into genres such as "rock" and "metal."
--Erica

Metal does not deal exclusively with dark subjects and that is a narrow minded view of the whole scene. Although the songs about eating babies hearts are the reason why I love my brootal metal.

Thank you. I'm so sick of genre arguments. "That isn't metal, it's rock." "This isn't rock, it's metal." "That's not math rock, it's art rock." Etc.

Yes but they will still always rage on. I hate them too but what can we do- bands need to be pigeonholed in order to appeal to a set of fans. Sub genres have increased tenfold since I got into music. It's the nature of the beast and it can't be stopped unfortunately :(

Yeah I understand that grouping bands into genres is a convenient way to know what you will and will not like, and bands need to assign themselves to a genre in order to reach a fan base. But there's just too many arguments and discrepancies over all these crazy subgenres that it just gets ridiculous. Anyway.

Metal is always rock, rock is not always metal.