Hard Rock - WE NEED YOUR HELP
Printed From: MetalMusicArchives.com
Category: Site News, Newbies, Help and Improvements
Forum Name: Help us improve the site
Forum Description: Help us improve the forums, and the site as a whole
URL: http://www.MetalMusicArchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2376
Printed Date: 21 Dec 2024 at 5:01am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 10.16 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Hard Rock - WE NEED YOUR HELP
Posted By: Andyman1125
Subject: Hard Rock - WE NEED YOUR HELP
Date Posted: 03 Sep 2011 at 7:06pm
|
As many of you may have noticed we have welcomed a new sub-genre into the MMA family of metal - Hard Rock! As many of the artists here on MMA filed under various sub-genres (most notable Alt. and Proto metal) would be a much better fit in Hard Rock, the collaborator teams would like to implore the members of MMA to help us out. So, if you know of or see an artist on MMA that you think would fit better in Hard Rock, please post in this thread!  NOTE: This thread is NOT for suggestions; please post those in the suggestions forum found http://www.metalmusicarchives.com/forum/forum_topics.asp?FID=1" rel="nofollow - here . Also, the Hard Rock genre page can be found http://www.metalmusicarchives.com/hard-rock%28subgenre%29.aspx" rel="nofollow - here . ------------- http://bit.ly/kZR7BC" rel="nofollow">  http://andywebb.bandcamp.com/" rel="nofollow - My Bandcamp
|
Replies:
Posted By: bonnek
Date Posted: 06 Sep 2011 at 4:19pm
|
"Nevermind" is hard rock? There are people that will kill for that, if they don't succumb to endless laughter first. What was wrong with Alternative metal? Also, "Moving Pictures" hard rock? Way too refined for that. Don't agree at all. 
|
Posted By: Triceratopsoil
Date Posted: 06 Sep 2011 at 4:37pm
It's there because it isn't remotely metal. |
bonnek wrote:Posted By: bonnek
Date Posted: 07 Sep 2011 at 2:00am
Then it should be marked non-metal. Or is Hard Rock the bin of the site? Seriously, on a Metal site with 20 sub-genres, how can Nirvana and Rush be in the same place? That's absurd. |
Posted By: Colt
Date Posted: 07 Sep 2011 at 2:50am
Karl, the site is very much in its infancy. We are trying to ensure this site grows into an archive ( a proper archive - at this point I often suggest people look up the meaning) There will always be inconsistencies and controversies in genre placements. There are hundreds that stand out a mile at PA, for example Haken a HUGE PROG METAL band sit in Heavy Prog The Hard Rock genre has only been in place a few days and we are still formulating the rules and guidelines for placement. This may mean that some bands are moved in or even moved out again. Please bear with us during this stage but continue to alert or question band or album additions that may need more thought. ....and no Hard Rock won't turn into a Crossover ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/colt2112" rel="nofollow - http://www.last.fm/user/colt2112 
|
Posted By: bonnek
Date Posted: 07 Sep 2011 at 3:14am
|
Posted By: Pekka
Date Posted: 07 Sep 2011 at 3:44am
I think Nirvana is definitely a borderline act. I suppose the biggest reason they're here is Bleach, but Nevermind and In Utero are seriously dancing on the fence of being "hard" enough or not. In Utero has some quite heavy elements, but I don't really hear anything that would make them fit into an actual metal category. They were never seriously considered for Alternative Metal, at least to my knowledge.
I must say I was surprised to see their addition, and if it was my decision, I'd probably have left Nirvana and Pearl Jam out. But they're here and I'm happily working on their discographies.  ------------- http://iamthreepeople.bandcamp.com" rel="nofollow">  <- Click on this!
|
Posted By: bonnek
Date Posted: 07 Sep 2011 at 4:11am
|
At least they don't fit in the history of hard rock, certainly not when looking from a historic perspective. Whitesnake and Aerosmith, that's what we called hard rock here in the early 90s. Nirvana continued the punk of the Pixies and the Wipers, mixed with some proto-sludge of The Melvins (on Bleach especially), both styles being very anti-mainstream and nothing ado with the hard rock of their era. They should be here for Bleach, could be here for Nevermind, but not in hard rock.They are Grunge, part of Alt Metal. |
Posted By: Stooge
Date Posted: 07 Sep 2011 at 9:03am
|
I always thought of grunge and hard rock to be similar in that most groups with these labels really do not share much of a common sound, aside from being guitar-based rock. Some bands labelled grunge had more of a metal side to them (AIC, Soundgarden), while some don't sound much like metal at all or the bands were never associated with the metal scene. Same goes for hard rock. I thought of that tag to essentially be a substitute for being a heavy rock, and different bands achieve that heaviness by different means. ------------- https://armchairmaestro.com/" rel="nofollow - My Music Blog |
Posted By: Pekka
Date Posted: 07 Sep 2011 at 9:04am
I don't see it that way. Grunge is a pretty lousy genre tag with a wide variety of rock music held within. Of the "big four" Alice in Chains and Soundgarden were by far the heaviest, and thus they were added right when the site took off. Pearl Jam on the other hand is mostly a classic rock band and Nirvana was a punk rock band. It was the style of clothes and the location that pulled these bands under the same tag, not so much the music. I don't hear metal elements in PJ or Nirvana. By something of a stretch I can see them in hard rock, but that would require opening the can of worms called "define hard rock", and I'm not prepared to go there  Ah, too late  I agree that these bands don't fit the general idea I have of the genre called "hard rock", but they play rock music with a hard touch.
------------- http://iamthreepeople.bandcamp.com" rel="nofollow"> <- Click on this!
|
Posted By: bonnek
Date Posted: 07 Sep 2011 at 9:14am
|
Genre tags can be about more then just the music. Wasn't Punk rather a fashion then a style of music? There is as much difference betwee Sex Pistols, Buzzcocks, Damned and the Clash as between the 4 Grunge guys above, yet they're all punk. I guess that clarifies the bigger part of my shock of seeing Nirvana in Hard Rock. A punk-rock subculture band between the mainstream acts of the dinosaur generation. It's so wrong, it's like re-writing history. (Mind you, it's not that I don't like hardrock) |
Posted By: Stooge
Date Posted: 07 Sep 2011 at 9:21am
|
Didn't Motorhead have strong associations with the punk scene back in their earlier years? ------------- https://armchairmaestro.com/" rel="nofollow - My Music Blog |
Posted By: Wilytank
Date Posted: 07 Sep 2011 at 9:22am
|
Isn't newer Motley Crue more hard rock oriented? ------------- 
|
Posted By: Pekka
Date Posted: 07 Sep 2011 at 9:24am
 Some grunge bands can easily be classified metal. Just because The Clash dabbled in reggae, I wouldn't put Sex Pistols in Reggae Archives, if this makes any sense
I'd say perhaps even from Theatre of Pain onwards. With the exception of the self-titled. ------------- http://iamthreepeople.bandcamp.com" rel="nofollow"> <- Click on this!
|
Posted By: cannon
Date Posted: 07 Sep 2011 at 9:59am
| To my ears, "Grunge" is a recycled fusion of hard rock/heavy psych/metal/punk which was alternative to the mainstream of the day. Nirvana's Nevermind was the groundbreaking album that brought "Grunge" out of Seattle to the world. One of the most influential albums of the '90's and I would go as far to say all time. IMO, "Grunge" was a movement and also a sound and style of music. |
Posted By: Andyman1125
Date Posted: 07 Sep 2011 at 7:45pm
------------- http://bit.ly/kZR7BC" rel="nofollow"> http://andywebb.bandcamp.com/" rel="nofollow - My Bandcamp
|
Posted By: bonnek
Date Posted: 08 Sep 2011 at 1:54am
|
Yeah, we got a mole in the heavy team now |
Posted By: cannon
Date Posted: 08 Sep 2011 at 10:39am
|
If this isn't hard rock, I do not what it is: IMO, Pearl Jam is on the hard rock end of Grunge as Nirvana is more on the punk side. I've looked up numerous definations/descriptions of "grunge", or as I prefer to call it , the "Seattle Sound". I'm wondering if anybody else has. I think some "metalheads" are hammers...everything looks like a nail. Is a few comments from one collab that hardly contributes to the site going sway the admin. I hope not.
|
Posted By: Stephen
Date Posted: 08 Sep 2011 at 11:10am
| well i guess right now, anything that fits alternative rock is okay to be put in hard rock, and maybe later on if we already introduce Alternative Rock, then we'll rearrange all the bands. Probably the idea is to add as many bands as possible, which of course, is still in the close relation to that genre. |
Posted By: Pekka
Date Posted: 08 Sep 2011 at 1:59pm
|
I believe hard rock is as far as the expansion is ever going to go, I for one can't see the point in adding basic alt rock bands to a site that has never dealt with basic rock, be it alt or indie or anything with no connection with metal. ------------- http://iamthreepeople.bandcamp.com" rel="nofollow"> <- Click on this!
|
Posted By: Time Signature
Date Posted: 08 Sep 2011 at 4:50pm
|
I agree. I don't think there will be anymore expansions in the "softer-than-metal" direction. Hard rock intertwined with metal and often the two overlap, which is why the Hard Rock category was introduced. I personally think that alternative rock would be too far from metal, and it would allow for the addition of clearly non-metal bands like The Cure, U2, Saybia, Suede and whatnot - it would, however, be perfect material for a Rock Music Archives. I do not think that any of the hard rock additions made so far are that problematic - controversial, perhaps, but not out of place on a metal site. That's just my opinion. ------------- 
|
Posted By: bonnek
Date Posted: 08 Sep 2011 at 5:03pm
huh? do opinions get more validity with the amount of work or posts you make? I've done my thing. I find Nirvana in hard rock absurd, as well as having Nirvana and Rush in one place. If you all think that that is just fine then I'm wrong, or at least biased by what the press in my county sees as hard rock. Big deal. And I gave no opinion on Pearl Jam whatsoever, I don't even have one. |
Posted By: Andyman1125
Date Posted: 08 Sep 2011 at 5:05pm
|
Yea Nirvana in Hard Rock is a bit iffy IMO. ------------- http://bit.ly/kZR7BC" rel="nofollow"> http://andywebb.bandcamp.com/" rel="nofollow - My Bandcamp
|
Posted By: Colt
Date Posted: 09 Sep 2011 at 1:16am
|
At this stage in the site's development there is not a precise fit for Nirvana. IMO they are not Alt.Metal and their music also contrasted that of traditional Hard Rock. However, I can remember the stir they made in the music scene at the time, I can remember Metal Hammer changing forever following the release of "Nevermind" There were pages and pages dedicated to them. Let me state again - Metal Hammer! This site is called Metal Music ARCHIVES. Nirvana influenced so many metal bands, they have to be here. The perfect placement will come later. "Rome was not built in one day" John Heywood ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/colt2112" rel="nofollow - http://www.last.fm/user/colt2112
|
Posted By: adg211288
Date Posted: 09 Sep 2011 at 2:13am
|
I agree that Nirvana as hard rock isn't exactly accurate for me, but I can't say that they shouldn't be here at all, for reasons pointed out above. To me Nirvana is the sort of act that would be a fit for a theoretical 'metal related' sub, which to me implies not metal (or hard rock) themselves, but too important to not be listed at all. Not sure if there has ever been thoughts of MMA having a metal related sub like PA has prog related (IMO it could potentially be a minefield if we did), but IMO that's the best way for an act such as Nirvana to fit on a metal site. My pennies worth, anyway. ------------- Earn Money Online (NOT a scam): https://premium.gg2u.org?referrer=adg211288" rel="nofollow - GG2U https://adamsfilmcorner.quora.com/" rel="nofollow - Adam's Film Corner on Quora |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: 09 Sep 2011 at 2:52am
Of course not - Phil is just being a rude bastard again. Ignore him - I do!
Yes - they gigged heavily, played and recorded with the Damned and the various bands that came from the Chiswick stables. The Damned released the first "punk" album in the UK, "Neat, Neat, Neat" - and it's hard to tell the difference between that album and Hard or Indie Rock in places. Together, Motordamned released a cover of The Sweet's "Ballroom Blitz".
The line is a very difficult one - in many bands' cases it could be that certain albums are Hard Rock rather than Proto Metal, for example - and on many albums, there will be a mix of Proto and Hard Rock. In the latter case, I'd suggest leaving the album in Proto, even if there are only 2 or 3 Proto Metal songs - e.g. Dust. NWoBHM is a special case - it was never a style, it was a "movement" comprising many styles, so there are many bands which would arguably be better described as Hard Rock, who are NWoBHM just for being in the right place at the right time - nothing to do with the sound or style. The guideline I would offer is that; - Hard Rock is more noticeably based on Blues ,so there will be 12-bar patterns and standard pentatonic licks which are obvious, classic examples being AC/DC's "The Jack" and "The Rocker". - Heavy Psych, in which the riffs will not be sharp and clear, but fuzzy and slurry, with the trademark pentatonic soloing of that genre which may go off the beaten track somewhat, but will bear all the hallmarks of improvisation rather than a considered solo. This Hard Rock genre is a great idea, but I can see the rows already...
That said, all suggestions should be considered on their own merits, and not dismissed as dumb, since everyone has an opinion on this matter. |
Posted By: cannon
Date Posted: 09 Sep 2011 at 3:04am
My apologies. Completely uncalled for. Totally out of line.
|
Posted By: cannon
Date Posted: 09 Sep 2011 at 3:14am
I ignored you and you could handle it. Are you trolling again? |
Posted By: UMUR
Date Posted: 09 Sep 2011 at 3:23am
Please keep ignoring each other .------------- http://www.lyngby-boldklub.dk/" rel="nofollow - Forever TRUE - Forever BLUE! https://rateyourmusic.com/~UMUR" rel="nofollow - UMUR on RYM |
Posted By: cannon
Date Posted: 09 Sep 2011 at 3:30am
| I couldn't agree more. |
Posted By: bonnek
Date Posted: 09 Sep 2011 at 6:35am
|
Yes I will ignore everyone  Except this maybe, which I find a valid idea, Metal-related might be quite a small sub but it could be a relevant thing to have..
|
Posted By: UMUR
Date Posted: 09 Sep 2011 at 6:54am
|
The prog-related sub-genre on PA has always caused a lot of trouble and grief. I�m not sure I like the idea of copying that model. ------------- http://www.lyngby-boldklub.dk/" rel="nofollow - Forever TRUE - Forever BLUE! https://rateyourmusic.com/~UMUR" rel="nofollow - UMUR on RYM |
Posted By: bonnek
Date Posted: 09 Sep 2011 at 7:33am
|
I'm sure you can do better |
Posted By: Tupan
Date Posted: 21 Sep 2011 at 9:14pm
|
Mostly of the Queen albums labeled as Non-metal shoud be moved to Hard Rock. Examples: The Works, Innuendo, Made in Heaven. |
Posted By: Time Signature
Date Posted: 23 Sep 2011 at 5:42am
|
I agree on "Innuendo", but I am not sure about "The Works" and I haven't heard "Made In Heaven".
-------------
|
Posted By: Tupan
Date Posted: 23 Sep 2011 at 7:38am
|
From The Works: |
Posted By: zdunne
Date Posted: 24 Sep 2011 at 5:30pm
It could be argued that the three Aerosmith albums under Non Metal fit this argument as well though others may disagree with me on that (well at least Nine Lives and Honkin on Bobo, Just Push Play is a bad pop album in my opinion with only a few good tracks foreshadowing Tyler's descent into Idolitis). Anyway, as far as the broad definition of the Hard Rock category, I understand that further expansion might erode the site at this point as it is a metal site though one could argue that a Metal-Related Punk category could exist for bands like the Misfits, Bad Brains, Pennywise (who I always thought had some thrash characteristics), Offspring (early), the Ramones (pioneers who influenced both punk and metal) and others for bands that are decidedly Punk (not crossover thrash or alt metal) but have enough appeal to Metal fans to warrant being on a Metal site but I feel doing so would hurt the site not help as such suggestions would get heat from the Metal community even for the Hard Rock category (as some debates are causing now). Even our sister site Jazz Music Archives has seen some debates under what to include because they feel they need establish credibility as a jazz site and not just as a subsite of a prog site. |
Posted By: Tupan
Date Posted: 24 Sep 2011 at 5:33pm
| ^But I 'll not changemy opinions about Queen. They are THE hard rock band. |
Posted By: Balthamel
Date Posted: 03 Nov 2011 at 8:05am
|
a silly question from me ( i don't know where to adress this but anyhow), but how is Innuendo by Queen not able to rate or not a metal/hard rock album when the title track is one of the heavyest songs they have,...
------------- 
|
Posted By: Triceratopsoil
Date Posted: 03 Nov 2011 at 3:27pm
| Probably because an album needs to be predominantly metal (or hard rock) to be labeled as such. |
Posted By: Balthamel
Date Posted: 04 Nov 2011 at 10:10am
ok  im fine with that. just wonderd
-------------
|
Posted By: LightningRider
Date Posted: 05 Oct 2021 at 11:27am
|
Meat Loaf's Bad Attitude album is definitely Hard Rock. Should be switched from non-metal. Not super important since it's the only Meat Loaf album whose genre tagging i'd change, but I thought I might mention it. ------------- And the Trogdor comes in the NIIIIGHT! |