I always heard of AOR meaning Album Oriented Rock. But I think Adult Oriented Rock makes a lot more sense these days. I do have my own term I use sometimes: Mullet Rock.
Haters of 'mullet rock' may dislike that term for similar reasons that some dislike 'hair metal' - both go after the hair. Kinda putting looks/image ahead of the music - never been a fan of that generally speaking but music's always been tied to fashion to some extent. And with MTV more & more "visually oriented" & image-conscious - for better or worse...
Pete summed it up for alternative music: was the alternative to everything else at the time. It was kind of an antithesis to mainstream rock like Springsteen/Bon Jovi and metal, like Metallica, Slayer, etc. Even though alternative bands were inspired by a lot of mainstream rock and metal, the press presented them as a scene rebelling against them.
Excellent video, guys! I generally enjoy the Friday shows on the channel, and I could listen to you two talk about music all day. I have an idea for a future show: can you each think of a few of your favorite hometown area bands?
This could also be favorite and least favorite hometown bands. Some people would say that I need to turn my TX card in because I'm from Dallas and I don't like Pantera...
"AOR" actually stood for "Album Oriented Radio" and used to refer to bands that were, well, album oriented as opposed to singles oriented radio. This is why in the 70s and 80s what we would today call "classic rock" radio was called "AOR". It was really a radio industry term as opposed to a genre per se (though AOR was typically classic rock). In the NYC metro area for example WNEW, WPLJ, and WAPP were all called "AOR" stations until around the early mid 80s or so (I don't know if they were heard as far north as Hudson Valley).
Not coincidentally computerized/outsourced radio play lists also reared their ugly head around late 70's/early 80's (partly to cut costs by making it possible to fully automate radio & not have to pay dj's/hosts). Those automate playlists catered to the singles & popular hits, not 'deep' album tracks so they would've excluded AOR-type music to a great extent
I grew up in early 80's in Ireland. At the time, we thought of NWOBHM just as a cheesy name dreamed up by music journos. None of us who were into the music really referred to the music as NWOBHM. It was just heavy metal.
I'd argue, that the british Glam-Rock at its core has some similar traits. There is this classic stripped down way of playing Bluesy riffs with waaay more fuzz or so in it. Like T.Rex "Ride a white swan", David Bowie "Watch that man" or -to name a silly one- Mud "Tiger Feet". Plus another thing: The USA in the 1970s had some cool, but obscure Glam Rock too, like Zolar X, Brett Smiley, Jobriath and -arguably- Sparks! Damn, I loooove original Glam. :)
To me 70's Glam (as most other music) was the best & I like it a lot too. Besides the obvious ones: Arrows, Hello, Glitter Band, Mud, Shabby Tiger, Spiders From Mars, 18 Karat Gold
Great topic! I remember when I was a kid someone gave me a bunch of 8 tracks (!). Bands like Bad Company, Styx, Led Zeppelin and Boston. A friend of my Mom told her that was “acid rock” . Totally freaked my Mom out. She still let me keep them though
None of those bands were acid rock (though "Whole Lotta Love" and "Dazed And Confused" could certainly be considered acid rock) Boston and Styx aren't remotely acid rock. Acid rock was never well defined and was often conflated with heavy metal or psychedelic rock (which aren't mutually exclusive of course). It usually referred to hard rock that had explicit allusions to drugs, especially psychedelics (hence 'acid').
@@b.g.5869 I know, right? Just goes to show how labels and genres can be misused and thrown around by people who don’t really know what they’re talking about.
Pete, how about for a show topic - "which do you prefer, the "young" version or the "mature" version of a band?" I have personal examples both ways. I prefer young Rush (70's) to mature Rush (Presto, etc)... I prefer young Yes (70's) to mature Yes (anything after Drama)... on the other side I prefer mature IQ (post-Menel) to young IQ (80's) and mature Echolyn (post As The World) to young Echolyn. Young IQ and Echolyn I find to be okay, but once they refined their sound and style and improved the production, I find everything they've done to be fantastic.
I tend to use just hard rock and heavy metal. The "subgenres" are kind of silly, but they are useful, at times, when talking about eras. We all know what time period the New Wave of British Heavy Metal was. We all know what time period hair metal was. The same could be said for grunge and nu metal. But as someone has already posted, really, it's all rock n' roll in the end.
In Germany, we used other terms for genres: 1. Bay Area Thrash (Thrash Metal in the same style not necessary from the bay area): Metallica, Megadeth, Laaz Rockit, Mortal Sin, Mordred Mainstream/Commercial Rock (Kommerzrock): Journey, Boston, Survivor, REO Speedwagon, Phenomena II, Loverboy, Treat, Skagarack Poser Metal: Bon Jovi Glam Metal: Motley Crue, Cinderella Sleaze Metal: GunsnRoses, Dangerous Toys, Seahags Neo-Thrash: Pantera, Machine Head White Metal: Stryper, Barren Cross, Whitecross, Shout
The term "hair metal" wasn't even a thing until the 90's when it was being used by music journalists and alternative musicians specifically to denigrate the bands who were originally referred to as "glam metal" or sometimes "pop metal." The "hair netal" term was meant to be dismissive, as in "These bands have no substance. They are all image over integrity, just a bunch of hair farmers." Personally, I prefer the term "pop metal," or just "hard rock," because not all of the bands could be described as "glam metal" be cause they never wore the makeup or colorful stage costumes. The whole glam look died around the time Guns N' Roses broke big. Also, many of those bands aren't really heavy enough to be called metal. By 1994, the term "alternative rock" was pretty much a bastardized marketing tag. Originally, alternative rock referred to all the left of mainstream bands in the post-punk, college rock, and indie rock scenes who did not enjoy mainstream success during the 80's. Some of those bands would become bigger in the 90's (such as REM), but many would remain in the underground or have only minor hits.
You can definitely slide 'hair metal' under the 'hard rock' category but that's because (to me anyway) that hard rock definition is so vague that lots of bands could fit into it. And that seems self-defeating, to have a sub-genre so vaguely defined that it doesn't really serve that much use in telling listeners what they're gonna hear/what to expect. I agree that 'hair metal' seems to have had derogatory origins. Kinda makes sense too as I believe that most new sub-cats are 'invented' by music critics & writers who then use them to comment on whole groups of bands/albums/music (positively or negatively), as a short-hand way of describing it
I didn't watch the show yet but wanted to tell you Martin, I just got your Uriah Heep book (Marchenzo is my PayPal name) as I'm a huge fan. Phenomenal! Love it. I've been following you since the 80's and have several of your older books and will be buying a lot more. This Heep book is something, I'm looking forward to spending hours with it this weekend. Thanks again!
Your conversations on fridays are so intelligent and meaningful. Although it might be considered over analyzed but thats ok music is so fun to talk about and discuss. By the way Hair Metal is also put in a category called Butt Rock. Goggle describes this as musical stank that you can't get off your shoes. Also music that you secretly like.
It baffles me that anyone would secretly like any type of music. Not disagreeing with you, just don't understand why it happens. To make fun of someone's taste in music is middle school crap 🤪
Yes sir, love me some Butt Rock, shake that ass while blasting early Crue or Ratt! Wear that stank proudly, hope it never washes off and nothing secretive about playing air guitar to a George Lynch or Nuno Bettencourt solo🤘🤘🤘🎸🎸🎸 MILLIONS and MILLIONS AGREE!
@@seaoftranquilityprog oh yeah, I understood! And I think your remarks were very thoughtful and smart. But I still think these weird nomenclatures serve a purpose. For example: I know that "melodic death metal" is a silly name, but the bands that are represented by it are definitely quite different from the original death metal bands. So, even though these titles sound a bit stupid, I still think they make some sense, you know?
2 more stupid names to add to the mix (genres I like quite a bit though): shoegaze and post rock. Shoegaze I think was meant to be derogatory by a journalist in that the bands had no stage presence as they were always staring at their feet to use their multitude of guitar effects pedals. That may be true but it doesn't describe the sound at all. An alternate name could be Spacy Fuzz, or Floating Distortion, or Cloud of Distortion (all cool band names now come to think of it). Post rock is weird because it implies that it comes after rock, like rock is finished (dead?) and this is the music that is happening now. But musically it's basically progressive rock without the solos/virtuosity; long songs, few if any vocals, but the main characteristic is the big builds and huge crescendos, so I think a more fitting title would be Crescendo Rock.
I've always found sub-genres useful for the listener to find bands who play a similar style to a band or bands they love. Marillion led me to discover prog rock, and indeed neo-prog and related sub-genres. Meanwhile in the dark 90s and early 2000s when such terms were out of favour, artists like Marillion and Porcupine Tree shunned these terms when they attracted only howls of derision from critics and the mainstream music fashionistas.
Interestingly enough, King Diamond argued once that Judas Priest was the first true metal band, because they were the first band to jettison the blues influence, which is what Diamond argued is the definitive characteristic of 'true heavy metal' (i.e. heavy music that's essentially more 'operatic' than 'bluesy'). I think it's an interesting argument but I can't agree with him. By that logic Black Sabbath isn't a 'true metal band' and I don't think Priest _completely_ jettisoned _all_ blues influence, but I understand his point. There is a strain of heavy metal that is coming from a very different place so to speak than the more obviously blues tinged strains of heavy metal. A lot of early Sabbath is kinda like blues on acid as it were, whereas the sort of metal characteristic of Priest and Maiden and Accept is almost reminiscent of classical music or opera. If you compare a song like "War Pigs" to something like Accept's "Restless And Wild" you can get a good sense of what the different 'places' I'm referring to are.
What really has always struck me as odd is the term Crossover Thrash Metal. Considering that everyone claimed that Thrash Metal itself was a combination of Hardcore Punk and Metal, how can Crossover Thrash be anything but the same thing as Thrash Metal? Especially considering the fact that originally Hardcore Punk itself was derived from a combination of Punk and Metal
In my opinion Carcass - Heartwork is the first melodic death metal album. Two years before Slaughter of the Soul. But yes, I agree, way too many sub genres. It’s dizzying
I agree with you. I'd even go so far as to say Carcass's 1991 album Necroticism - Descanting the Insalubrious was already leaning towards the melodic death metal sound.
some say that the look of 80's hair metal started with motley's look on the theater of pain album as well as the 80's sunset strip glam / party atmosphere, then all those bad 3rd and 4th tier band's ran with that look (firehouse, poison, trixter, danger danger, etc...) thus bands like whitesnake, dokken and ozzy followed the trend. even creditable rock bands with that one power ballad got lumped into it all, though still had the look at some point (tesla, cinderella, mr. big, etc..) but every one was trying to out beat the other and next thing you know everyone started to sound alike.
You guys didn’t mention the grandaddy of all nebulous music genre labels: R & B It stands for, or is supposed to stand for, Rhythm & Blues. When it was originally used, it didn’t inspire rock and roll, it WAS rock and roll. It was a pre-existing type of music that white people started playing, and slapped a new label on to appeal to a wider market. The black performers even called this out in interviews. Someone once asked Fats Domino “How did this whole rock and roll thing get started?” and he responded by saying that they were just calling it rock and roll now, but he had already been playing it for years and it was known as rhythm and blues. I have a poster for The Who, showcasing Pete Townsend jumping up in the air with his guitar in hand, and emblazoned with the message “Maximum R&B”. If you show up to a Who concert expecting to hear something like R. Kelly, you’ll be in for quite a surprise. Today, there’s even a blurred line between hip hop, rap and r&b. It is NOT synonymous with rock and roll. It has virtually nothing in common with original r&b aside from the ethnicity of most of the people performing it, which I would consider a pretty crap pre-requisite for defining a genre.
I have that Townshend poster too! R&B used to mean & stand for something completely different than the modern version & it's really a shame to keep using that same label for this music. Same with 'Pop', Hendrix & The Who were considered pop bands in their day but it means something different now
To me there are far too many genres and sub genres. There are really only two types of music: music you want to listen to and music you don’t want to listen to.
AOR is a term I use for heavy melodic rock with a lot of keyboards and atmosphere. They use the keyboards almost like a second guitar. These are bands that I refer to as "AOR": Glory, Bad English, Dare, Trillion, Balance, Only Child, Tobruk, White Sister, Zar, China, Alien, Alias, Raw Silk, From the Fire, Find Me, Biloxi, East Coast, Streets, Stormbringer, Survivor, Kharma, Glasgow, etc.
I think the term hair metal has changed over the years. I remember in the 80s that it was definitely derogatory and used towards bands who worried more about how they look. Poison is the first band that comes to mind , remember it was used for them a lot when they came on the scene.
Big tech death and progressive death metal fan here. The difference to me is that the “raison d'être” of technical death metal is virtuosity. Listening to bands such as Obscura, Archspire, First Fragment, Beyond Creation, and Allegaeon illustrate just how amazing the musicians are in the band. Progressive death metal shows more influence of 70s progressive rock without as much of the emphasis on virtuosity, with Opeth being the archetype. And I am a little surprised that you didn’t mention Djent, which is a spin-off of progressive metal.
I've always thought there were two branches of progressive death metal. One you mentioned with Opeth as the archetype, but also another one that appeared in the early 90's with Death - Human, Atheist - Unquestionable Presence and Cynic - Focus. I've always enjoyed how both of these branches co-exist in the progressive death metal world but also offer something different from each other.
Speed Metal was definitely an odd term to describe just about every Metal band that wasn't on a major label in the early to mid 1980s , especially when some of these bands weren't really very fast
Didn't mention power metal, which I really enjoy, but is not very descriptive. Symphonic probably is more descriptive. The genre seems mostly defined by having 1st rate singers, eg, Kiske, Jansen.
Album Oriented Rock is used when talking about classic rock in relation to radio. Adult oriented rock is used when talking about melodic rock, corporate rock, and arena rock, and not so much when talking about what is played on the radio. Pretty fine line, and almost interchangeable, but both are used.
@@seaoftranquilityprog ...and specific to FM radio not AM (which largely focused on singles & 'hits') & largely a 70's thing - things changed with the 80's. I also always felt that AOR had a component of 'deep cuts' to it that doesn't necessarily always fit the 'classic rock' radio format although for at least some time AOR & classic rock seem to have been virtually interchangeable terms. To me classic rock describes a certain group of (70's) artists considered to have been at the core of the (70's) rock scene like Purple, Zep, Who etc. The 'classic rock' stations that played that type of music either exclusively or predominantly didn't necessarily also play those bands' deep album cuts...I've read that typical radio stations have music databases that are in the hundreds of tracks total, in other words less than a thousand songs at any one time (music is rotated in/out) which is why I no longer listen...
I think a lot of this has been driven by the marketing people. Those acts deemed to be Niche or New (whether they are or not) require marketing, so hey what term shall we use to promote our new product and make it out to be different, unusual or unique!
We never called hair metal by this name back in those days - it was "pop metal" or "hard rock" (while metal was Iron Maiden, Saxon, Metallica etc), for non metal fans it was simply "metal" because they didn't know any other heavier real metal bands. I remember genres "hardcore metal", "alternative metal", "nu metal" even "grunge metal?!?"... - they sounded "progressive" and modern and hip, while heavy metal was just "old" and "boring". IMO bands and magazines came up with all this names for "genres" just to make them different and not to be associated with some bands they didn't like. Grunge for example became much more than just a music genre after '91 ... Ad. Martin - agree 100% - there is only good and bad music (quote by Kurt Weill)
Sub-genres can go too far, of course, but they're necessary in their own way. The original few genre labels have been rendered meaningless as more and more varieties are introduced. What constitutes 'rock' or 'metal' is such a wide swath of sounds that calling a band one of those terms doesn't tell a newcomer anything at all about what they should expect. At that point, why are we even bothering?
Exactly, there's a tipping point somewhere when the various labels become non-descriptive in giving listeners the info that they're supposed to convey. Or slicing/dicing a genre so finely that you basically have a handful of bands in each sub-genre - that's not helpful (to me anyway)
The two worst terms I know is "Christian metal" and "female fronted metal", because these terms don’t describe the music at all, and both incorporate everything from AOR to death metal. Man, I hate those terms…
Any time I see a sub-genre containing 'Christian' I assume it's due to the lyrics being about religious-based themes and/or straight-up biblical topics (which to be fair it usually is). To me that's actually helpful as a 'filter' as I generally don't like being preached to when listening to music...A great example is Neal Morse's non-secular solo stuff
Interesting convo. I'm surprised Aerosmith wasn't mentioned to make your point. Through the years the rock band from Boston has been called Hard Rock, Blues rock, hair metal (w/Pump), and AOR in the new century. Did they really do different stuff? Or is it the people using these terms that change? Or is this all a product of the evolution of language? 🤷♂️
I don't have a problem with the term "glam". I use it constantly to apply to stuff, mostly from the '70s, that I do find a decisive sound and thematic thread to, albeit it with some variances and alterations, sometimes straying into punk territory. However, I do find myself sometimes having to clarify that I'm not talking about hair metal. There are, and have been modern examples (modern meaning post-1980 in my case) of what I would put under the umbrella - Suede, Pulp, Imperial Drag, Borns, Dr. Boogie and The Biters being a few examples...
Kansas is a Prog rock band, buat one time a Corporate Arena rock band, just like Journey, in the height of their Prog Glory with POKR and Leftoverture. Is there a fine line or just call theme both. A Genre that I like, which has few bands is "Death Rock".. A weird Gothic tinge to it, like Blue Oyster Cult is the beginning of it and Siouxie & Banchies, Christian Death, Nosferatu, Coven are certainly pioneres as well and The Cure.. These bands are All Rock, they are all dark they are heavy at times and not metal, but Hard Rock at best! About music first then the look. What I find interesting is the So Called artists in the "Hair Glam" time is Early Crue, Keel, Cinderella and Dokken, is that they were kinda forced into the look, but put out Great music first and formost. Dokken is the best example.. They were melodic and had some hits, but could Thrash Hard! Cinderella were Glammy, but had some Blues tallent, as oppossed to your Poison and Bon Jovie! You guys bring up Great points about how ridiculous this subject can get. Venum for example.. Are they Thrash or Black? I vote for the Prior. BATHORY what are they? = It depends upon the time period of an albums release as we know Quarthon changed quite a bit in the career. Same with Chuck with DEATH. Music evolves. Bands Evolve. Early Death PESTILENCE is a different animal than later Jazz Techno PESTILENCE for sure. On the other hand, some of these Generes have some validity. I do accept a difference of Heavy Metal, being Pop = True Hair/Glam, Death, Black & Thrash. But is Hair/Glam even Metal? I would say No! Just Hard rock for sure, like KISS! Some things that we call old PUNK is just Hard Rock = Black Flag & Sonic Youth! DOOM Metal or AKA Iconoclastic Metat got it's nod from Sabbath and CandleMass, = The Big Early 3 are "My Dying Bride" "Anathema" and "Paradice Lost", With a forth runner up is "Paramecium". These bands were just "Different"! Very far and few. Even Cathedral, is not even part of them, as they got their cue from Sabbath for sure! These bands are doom and gloom, with a hint of Goth, but different from anything at the time, which is in the early 90's! I do Hate the NUE lable of metal though. What is KORN = Metal! And it isnt even New anymore. Same with Alot of the bands that came out in mid to late 90's Like Slipknot & Coalchamber.. Nothing new. CREED Nickleback are just a follow up of bad Grunge along with name, a few bands who need to be forgotten about, who all sho ssings of Pearl Jam Sicknes, Eddie Vetter could sing for CREED and we probably would not even know it! I Hate his voice and singing style!
Genres are ultimately nonsense - as after all it all is music .... However, they are a convenient method of trying to describe a style of music - as long as people understand what it means (like all descriptive language) is all that matters.
i am not the guy that complains whenever they say Hair Metal i am a new guy and i F****** DESPISE the term Hair Metal. in the 80s i was in the Thrash scene and ALL of my friends loved trashing on Glam Metal, it honestly never bothered me the way it bothered all my friends but still we called it Glam Metal everyone i knew or met called it Glam Metal. i NEVER heard the term Hair Metal until the 90s when smug douchebag trendy Grunge kids that got off on talking shit about metalheads started using it. it is such a trigger when people use that term, and the term doesnt even make sense because from the beginning Elvis had long weird wild hair for his time, the Beatles had long weird crazy hair for their time, the mid/late 60s hippie groups had long weird hair, the punks of the 70s had weird wild hair for their time, the goths of the 80s had weird wild hair for their time, a lot of the traditional metal bands hair wasnt that far off from those Glam Metal bands. so defining these bands or this movement or whatever down to nothing but hair styles if stupid. why dont we just call grunge Flannel rock.
I view "altenative" as a term for a wide variety of modern music that wasnt "rock" or metal. "Rock" was more of a classic style, alternative was a category where record stores could stock a mix of contemporary, harder to define bands. "Modern rock" would have been a better term.
Never encountered "Hair Metal" in the late 80s/early 90s. Always thought that that is a retroactively made up term. The most derogatory term at the time was "Poser Rock".
There's a definite genre that you obviously ignore that contains great bands you never address, it's Stoner Rock. Bands like Kyuss, Fu Manchu, Orange Goblin, Clutch and many more.
Many of these labels though a bit silly have been around for many years and everyone knows exactly what they mean. Take the neo prog story, I know who Steven had his neo prog disagreement with, but for me as somebody new to to prog in general I used that description of that guitarists work, because I knew I liked the ‘neo prog’I’d heard. So because of that as much as he might not like the term , he gained a new fan from hit a a fair few sales. So these terms are useful.
The reason Alice In Chains and Soundgarden were called alternative is because they were from Seattle. Both of these bands early albums were Metal but later they started to sound alternative because of that alternative label that was put on them.
True, but not as strictly as we think today. No one threw a purity fit if a collegerock/alt band had a confederate flag sticker on am amp, or the drummer wore a meathead shirt.
Cool show gentlemen! I completely agree about alternative and indie rock becoming completely meaningless terms encompassing a variety of sounds. None of the bands associated with those genres defined themselves or their music with those terms. More about marketing than music. That being said, I do like a lot of bands that are categorized under those (meaningless) labels, such as as Husker Du, the Replacements, the Pixies, Jesus & Mary Chain, the Cure, Spoon, Wilco, My Morning Jacket, etc., but there's quite a range of styles there.
I have been a huge Smashing Pumpkins fan since I was in my twenties in the nineties. Even though I loved bands like Nirvana which really was alternative rock. Smashing Pumpkins to me was the most psychedelic group of the nineties. Also a of the Pumpkins music could be way harder than what was called alternative music, with some melodic melodies in Billy Corgan's music. Also Alice In Chains and Pearl Jam were not really alternative bands at all. Alice In Chains and Pearl Jam were more hard rock bands. Also Alice In Chains could be very metal at times. Yes I don't get sub genres either.
Alice in Chains were metal. Pearl Jam were hard rock. Nirvana and Soundgarden were somewhere in between, though Nirvana's debut really was a metal record.
@@venanciahopkins5035 Definitely a unique band with their own sound, melting different influences together. Billy was a great,great songwriter in the 90s.
With the Sub-Genre Names, I am in West Australia & there's a well-known store in Australia called JB HiFi who have a strange habit of mislabeling titles. I see in their stores Gary Moore under Blues, Kraftwerk under Dance, and Blackmore's Night under Heavy Metal! In some cases they see an artist has done a blues album or two, so to them it all must be Blues, or they hear a track by Kraftwerk being played in a dance venue, so they must be a Dance band? Also, just because Ritchie Blackmore was in a famous hard rock band, it doesn't mean that is still what he is doing? Also, why is it that some of these artists are put into certain categories when others are just labeled Popular just because they may be a more familiar household name? For example, Led Zeppelin are listed under Popular, yet I think a name such as Black Sabbath is just as familiar to the general public as Led Zeppelin, possibly even more so nowadays.
Nice episode. As for the much-discussed term "Hair Metal", I'm definitely team Butch/Eddie Trunk. To me it's clearly a derogatory, contemptuous term established by people to express their dislike. Here in Germany back in the day the term was synonymous with "Poser Metal". I take note of the tongue-in-cheek usage - especially years later in the SoT environment - but I always use the term "Glam Metal", which I consider to be significant, despite the origin-related problems that Martin addressed.
My thing about ‘hair metal’ is that I like a lot of the music by the bands that get called that; but ironically I strongly dislike the fashion and look those bands went for: big hair, androgynous make-up, spandex and tight leather pants. Essentially wearing their girlfriends’ make up and clothing. However in retrospect I can separate the music from the look/fashion. I am not sure everyone can, particularly as it was the MTV video/Headbangers Ball era.
@@jimmycampbell78 I'm someone who has a hard time separating them but then again, I think most of those bands wanted it that way (largely due to MTV & the like). And image was always pretty tightly bound to music (at least since Elvis & The Beatles if not prior to that). On the other hand I also honestly dislike much of that 'hair metal' (glam metal, pop metal - whatever term you wanna use) just musically speaking so...
U2, etc., were termed "Big Music" so that one is taken, hair metal fan. On the "alternative" tag, in the UK, it was an alternative to mainstream pop music. Also, I tend to think of "alternative" being American indie. REM were alternative, The Smiths were indie What is indie? Well, it was the child of punk/post-punk (Bunnymen, Joy Division, etc.).On the use of "neo" or "new", this will always nbe used to sell newer bands, regardless of their music being similar to older bands, nu metal, nu disco, nu jazz anyone? On sounding more "metallic", this means sounds more metal, as in heavy metal, surely? (As in sounds like Judas Priest!). I'd like to finish with a shout out to cock-rock.
I see 'krautrock' misused so often, like it's any band that's proggy & from Germany. There needs to be healthy doses of 'experimental' elements mixed in to be actual krautrock
An excellent and thoughtful video as always Martin and Pete. My apologies in advance for my long winded posts! It seems to me that these sub genres' are a tad a bit silly, to the point of being almost counter-productive. I am sure, like everything else in life, everything is segmented by marketing departments, borrowed by lazy journalist's who often just read the press release, give a cursory listen and just pigeon hole it. Metal especially seems to have gone down this rabbit hole. I will say however it does have it's uses at times. Take the whole 'drone metal' scene, a cluster of groups I like and are interested in. Technically speaking this is 'doom metal', but what bands like Earth, Sunn0))), Burning Witch, Khanate or Boris have in common with St Vitus, Trouble or Sabbath stylistically is anybody's guess, apart from the fact they are all 'slow' and 'heavy'. Where do the Melvins fit in all this, don't know, but as a consumer who is going to spend money, it serves as a useful guide. I mean I can't fathom what the poor unfortunate soul who purchased 'The Black One' expected when he or she thought they were getting the follow up to 'Mournful Cries'. But if you want true confusion, krautrock is the true head scratcher. As Ken Golden and Steve Feigenblum explained there are many tributaries, to the point arguably it's more a zeitgeist or a scene rather than a genre. Stylistically there is nothing in common between the bands Amon Duul II, Kraftwerk and Faust. However they all shared an anti-establishment attitude, and were often in the same bands. For example Hans-Joachim Roedelius from Cluster featured on 'Kanguru' by Guru Guru. Cluster and Guru Guru are about as far apart from each other as one can get. The only thing that seen as the 'connecting tissue', apart from all knowing each other, is Conny Plank, the famous producer who seemed to have produced everybody at some point. The outcome of course is that the guys looking for a rip roaring acid soaked guitar shredder like Ax Genrich or Manuel Göttsching might stumble on the more contemplative works of Harmonia or Popul Vuh, and falling in love with that deepdive.
Hard rock and heavy metal can get really confusing; it is one of the most ever-evolving subgenre of rock music there, but I still enjoy the distinction.
I agree it's confusing - just read the SoT comments whenever 'hard rock' is discussed. It always amazes me what types of artists get lumped into that category
@@williamwalker146 One example in the episode "The Hudson Valley Squares: Favorite Hard Rock Debut Album". Some bands that get named: The Doors, Boston, Foreigner, Heart, Bad Company, The Outlaws - none of those to me are 'hard rock' bands, but that's just me...When I hear 'hard rock' I'm thinking Ozzy, AC/DC, Deep Purple, Dio
I just have only three Metal categories: 1. Light Metal: Power Ballads, Hard Rock, Pomp Rock, Glam, Sleaze, Grunge, Gothic Metal 2. Heavy Metal: Heavy Metal, Speed Metal, Doom, Thrash, Power, Progressive Metal, Groove 3. Extreme Metal: Death Metal, Thrash, Black Metal, Funeral Doom
22:30 I think perhaps, long ago, a music critic incorrectly used "neo" as a synonym for "quintessential" and it stuck. I remember thinking that was the meaning, when I was young, during Yngwie's meteoric ascent.
Brutal Death Metal is as much an absurdity as Melodic Death Metal . All Death Metal is supposedly Brutal. What is even more bizarre is the fact that nearly everyone agrees that Mortician, and Incantation are the most Brutal Heavy Death Metal in existence, but neither of them meets the criteria that defines the micro genre of Brutal Death Metal. Most of these Brutal Death Metal bands are extremely Technical, and often progressive to the point that they hardly repeat any of the riffs , yet Tech Death and Progressive Death Metal are also separate micro genres of the subgenre of Death Metal
Congratulations on an truly entertaining video. So if a band uses a pedal steel guitar does that make it more metallic. I guess not. I will just say that when I hear a band described as blues rock I usually have a pretty good idea as to how they will sound.
1:14 George F. Will said that "every team will win 1/3 of their games and lose 1/3 of the games: the teams are really squabbling over the remaining third".
Great discussion. Best show on the channel imo. I was hoping to hear a conversation about “progressive metal “. Like, what does Haken have in common with Fates Warning!? Nothing IMO
An interesting and thought provoking show. I'm glad NWOBHM was mentioned even though it was somewhat glossed over. Good to see some acceptance (especially from Pete) of the notion that it may, in fact, have been a movement rather than a genre. 😀
I had an assignment for work last year where I had to split specific albums into genres. It turned into a bit of a nightmare by the end and I ended up making a bunch of questionable decisions like: the first Allman Brothers Band album is blues-rock, but starting with "Idlewild South," they're southern rock "Dark Side of the Moon" is art rock, but "Animals" is prog-rock (cuz the songs are longer!) '70s Aerosmith is hard rock, but "Permanent Vacation" is glam metal "Remain in Light" is just new wave, even though it definitely feels like both post-punk and art rock "Marquee Moon" is post-punk, even though it came out before any Clash and Sex Pistols' albums the first three Death albums are just death metal, then the next three are technical death metal, but then the last one is progressive death metal
I don't hear glam metal at all when I listen to St. John and Hangman Jury, my two favorite songs on Permanent Vacation, but I respect that that's inevitably a difficult assignment.
Yeah as a death metal purist I’ll agree with Pete’s sentiment that we don’t really consider melodic death metal to be actual death metal. The music sucks almost as much as the term. Some have put the later Death albums in that category but I don’t necessarily agree with that. Also I remember in the 90’s indie rock being this sorta but not really mainstream thing but then that got HUGE in the 00’s. I remember stuff like Sonic Youth,Pavement and anything on Matador Records was indie rock and anti mainstream then it got co opted by mainstream culture.
