Does it really matter if W.A.S.P. are "Metal" or not?
Who gets to decide what "Metal" constitutes?
For some people it's Black Sabbath, for others it's Napalm Death.
In the era when W.A.S.P. initially broke through, the term "Heavy Metal" was applied to bands as disparate as AC/DC
and Venom.
If a band played Hard they were Metal, it was that simple.
All these sub-genre categorisations didn't come until later in the decade, initially as a lazy short-hand for journalists to give readers a rough idea of a band's sound.
I don't think it's served Metal as a whole, or individual bands very well, as the term "Metal" can now mean
almost anything guitar based, and the sub-genre headings only seem to serve to stifle the creativity of a lot of bands who only view themselves as part of a narrow sub-genre.
And those sub-genre names aren't really helpful to those bands who are not so easily pigeon-holed stylistically either.
So if we are, (as The Corroseum motto so proudly states), waging "uncompromising war on metallic modernism" here, let's stop using these narrow modern categorisations all together and get back to using the term "Metal" in a more inclusive way.
As the broad term which we used when the classic sounds which bring us together here were created.
Rant over.
I cannot, I shall not, I will not obey.
Avenger wrote : I'm not a copyright office nor a judicial entity.
