So What Exactly is Extreme Metal?

I go to thinking today how exactly do we define extreme metal? I'm old enough to remember when Motörhead were considered extreme. Then, of course, they were followed by the world's most evil and extreme band - Venom. Yeah, both pretty tame now, huh?

Sure, there's a case for saying that extremity is a personal thing and true extremity is when music takes you well out of your comfort zone and provides some discomfitude to your listening experience and there is merit in that view. But extremity when applied to metal tends to be a more defined beast, but do any of us actually know how it should be defined and who is and isn't? As illustrated by the two examples above, is extreme metal something that constantly need to be redefined? To me and I'm sure many others, albums like Reign in Blood, Under A Funeral Moon, Altars of Madness and In the Nightside Eclipse are like bread and butter and are difficult to continue to refer to as extreme, yet to fans of non-metal and even the more mainstream metal genres, these remain extreme-sounding.

So, is extremity in metal in the eye of the beholder or is it a universal truth?

There are some people out there who think of extreme metal as a genre, but it's definitely not. It's an umbrella term! That's like if someone asks you "What's your favorite movie?", and you say "The Marvel Cinematic Universe!" You don't have to treat a huge franchise like one film! Anyway, extreme metal is often split into 4 of the heavier metal genres; the speed metal of Venom, the thrash metal of Slayer, the black metal of Darkthrone and Emperor, and the death metal of Morbid Angel (even melodeath such as Dark Tranquillity), though this also includes heavy doom albums from the early 90s made by bands such as Anathema, Katatonia, My Dying Bride, and Tiamat. Then there are a few bands whom the extreme metal has stuck to them like a nametag, with one notable example being Cradle of Filth. You can definitely think of their sound as black metal, gothic metal, and symphonic metal, but extreme metal is the way to go because that's what the band is most comfortable with and a great compromise to not cause any severe arguments. Extremity is indeed suitable for music that expands your comfort zone and anyone who doesn't tolerate that level shouldn't proceed. I absolutely can tolerate extreme, but I know some people in the outside world can't, so I have to stay in control, especially when it comes to black metal, death metal, and doom metal. So... extremity can kinda both be (based on these song titles):

and

Thanks for the reply Andi. It kind of confirms what I suspected which is that, like so much in the modern world, it has become nothing more than a convenient label, or a corporate logo. This allows for easy digestion and assimilation which then removes any need for crirical appraisal of the art form. How very apt that you mention Marvel movies as a comparison, the ultimate corporate hijacking of popular culture.

It's interesting that you quote Cradle of Filth as an example of genuine extreme metal because for me, they are anything but. Yes, they were influenced by extreme metal, but they are a band who are more about image and wear the tag like a T-shirt. Compared to a band like, say, Khanate, they are about as extreme as Britney Spears! This version is the "ripped jeans" of metal. ( Ripped jeans are one of my major bugbears. We used  to wear ripped jeans back in the day because we couldn't afford new ones - see also "patched denim". Now fools buy ready-ripped jeans for sometimes hundreds of pounds, without any awareness of the irony.)

With the introduction of melodic variants of previously extreme genres like black and death metal, can we still claim these genres to be extreme merely by definition? Personally, I don't think so.

As far as I'm aware, "extreme metal" is a term that was originally created to encompass all of the genres that are generally hard on the ear for your average music fan. That comprises of anything related to thrash metal, death metal, black metal & grindcore & includes subgenres like death doom metal & funeral doom metal. I've never considered speed metal to be a part of it as it's essentially just sped-up heavy metal & generally includes more melody than the more rhythmic thrash sound. It's interesting that the elitists out there have never allowed for deathcore to be included under this banner when it clearly should be. I'd argue that a lot of mathcore & sludge metal are also pushing into that territory but I'm reasonably comfortable with where the cut-off is at the moment.

Is it hard to define what "extreme metal" is these days due to our ever-increasing desensitization? I don't think we need to take it too literally. I'm comfortable with the intent of the term & it serves its purpose in my opinion. I mean you could argue that "heavy metal" isn't really all that heavy by today's standards but we all know what it means so why fix what's not broken.

OK, so I get the accepted definition of Extreme Metal. So let's change the discussion then and I'll pose a different question,  just for discussion's sake. What do you personally consider to be extreme (with a small "e"). For me it's the more brutal regions of death metal with it's excessive glorification of violence and the more intense sludge/drone/doom acts like Khanate and Hell. Both of these force me out of my comfort zone with varying effect, the former pushes me into a place I don't enjoy and the latter takes me into a place where the discomfort becomes thrilling and triggers sensations unavailable elsewhere.

I don't consider many other accepted Extreme genres as extreme personally as they don't take me out of my comfort zone. My love of most black metal, old-school death metal, thrash and funeral and death doom mean that they are now so familiar to me that I feel completely at home with them so can't in truth stamp them as extreme.

I'm not trying to come across as some elitist asshole, but out of a genuine interest for the opinions of other Academy members, what do you all personally consider to be metal extremity? (There is no right or wrong answer!)

Here's how I would describe "extreme" metal. As much as I'm familiar with the term and can tolerate it, it doesn't seem quite appropriate to stick that label onto bands on a whim just because of how heavy they are/were. Bands that I like and used to like that have fallen into that trap include: Anathema, Converge, Dark Tranquility, Gojira, Katatonia, Lamb of God, My Dying Bride, Nevermore, and Tiamat. Extreme metal, in my opinion, should be reserved for the ultra-heavy genres I try to avoid such as the more brutal ends of death metal and black metal, and grindcore. The word "extreme" might raise some suspicion from my family and friends from the outside world, and that's why I have to be specific to them about the genres the bands play. "Extreme metal" is an OK term, but it shall be used wisely!

OK, so I get the accepted definition of Extreme Metal. So let's change the discussion then and I'll pose a different question,  just for discussion's sake. What do you personally consider to be extreme (with a small "e"). For me it's the more brutal regions of death metal with it's excessive glorification of violence and the more intense sludge/drone/doom acts like Khanate and Hell. Both of these force me out of my comfort zone with varying effect, the former pushes me into a place I don't enjoy and the latter takes me into a place where the discomfort becomes thrilling and triggers sensations unavailable elsewhere.

I don't consider many other accepted Extreme genres as extreme personally as they don't take me out of my comfort zone. My love of most black metal, old-school death metal, thrash and funeral and death doom mean that they are now so familiar to me that I feel completely at home with them so can't in truth stamp them as extreme.

I'm not trying to come across as some elitist asshole, but out of a genuine interest for the opinions of other Academy members, what do you all personally consider to be metal extremity? (There is no right or wrong answer!)

Interesting thread Sonny.  I have thought about this question a lot recently.  Personally, I don't think it is for anyone person here to define "extreme". I don't agree that it is a concept that I need to actively pursue a definition of otherwise I am just setting boundaries for myself surely? I listen to what I like and if others find that extreme then that's up to them.

Being out of my comfort zone is not something that I necessarily associate with extremity. Most popular music is outside of my comfort zone but I don't consider it extreme, just not enjoyable. Likewise, me sitting listening to Satanic Black Devotion right now is within my comfort zone but even though I have heard it many times, I never get tired of the artwork, the iconography, the waves of murky melody that are thrust at me over and over again. I don't sit here listening to it to explore being extreme, I just listen to it because I like it.

Most of what goes on in the Infinite, Sphere, Gateway and Revolution clans is well out of my comfort zone and to be honest I don't think of any of it in levels of being extreme or not.  If "extreme" is just a convenient tag then are we not just exacerbating the problem by discussing it here and having definitions in the first place?

Ritual Butcherer of Archgoat fame is interviewed in the latest issue of Zero Tolerance magazine (a mag incidentally that describes itself as being "The Extreme Music Authority") and he describes Satanism as becoming "overly complicated with different factions jealously sand-boxing their own little variants".  This kind of sums up the problem in metal I think with there always being someone or some movement thinking their version of a genre or sub-genre is more extreme than something else.  In the pursuit of extremity we just inevitably dilute the concept.

That's a very big claim on behalf of Zero Tolerance (a mag I have read a couple of times, but in common with all printed media, they exist to sell advertising). I'm not sure I'd want to listen to the opinion of anyone who claimed to be THE authority on anything.

My intention was for a nice interactive discussion around what us metal fans consider to be extreme, but I don't think I've put that across very well so maybe it sounds like I'm personally seeking to define extremity in respect of music, which I most definitely am not. I merely intended to seek others opinions as I thought they might be interesting.

I understand what you mean Vinny about being outside your comfort zone with popular music, most non-metal modern music is outside my own personal comfort zone. I was thinking more of music that's outside your comfort zone, but that you still enjoy as it energises you in a different way to what you may be used to.

Interesting comment from Ritual Butcherer about satanism becoming "overly complicated with different factions jealously sand-boxing their own little variants". Isn't that what has happened with all religions and belief systems since the dawn of Man?

I think I probably have a very high tolerance for extremity after all these years of indulging in the more intense end of metal. I usually only refer to something is being super-extreme if it sits in the brutal/slam death metal, grindcore, war metal or the more blasting black metal space although I think drone metal, sludge metal & mathcore can all touch on these levels of extremity at times, as can your more modern death metal & tech death outfits.

When I write reviews I often use the blanket term Extreme Metal to mean the heavier and more grotesque offshoots from the main "Heavy Metal" genre established early on, normally starting with Black, Death, or more aggressive Thrash. Like in my Witches Hammer Damnation Is My Salvation review I use the term a bunch when talking about the Canadian Metal scene that band is from just because it's easier to say Extreme Metal rather than always having to explain the blend of Thrash, Black, and Death Metal that they play. It gives the reader a quick and easy word to create an expectation of what kind of metal it is without going into deeper semantics. 

Your actual question though...I think it's when covers and bands glorify gore and violence in a way that's uncomfortable in their imagery, or don't adhere to what most would consider conventional songwriting. Grindcore instantly comes to mind with its 40 second songs and parental advisory covers, but I'd consider albums like the newest Esoctrilihum to be "extreme" as well just because of how dense and somewhat unwelcoming it is. I've never been a fan of any sort of shock factor employed by bands to try and prove how "Metal Extremist" they are, so that kind of stuff bounces right off of me. Bands like Archspire are in a different category, but their style of pushing metal to its most extreme heaviness and technicality is lost on me as well, although I don't hate it altogether. 

Oh yeah, there was that one song in a Horde Playlist with some dude in a skit saying he was having sex with an elephant or something? Mmm yes, "Raped By Elephants" by Torsofuck. Not a massive fan of that either, gotta say. Tongue-in-cheek or not, highly uncomfortable having that come on during my drive. 

I think most of us here are old enough to remember when magazines started advertising their contents as covering Extreme Metal (early to mid 90s). As Daniel mentioned, I think it was pretty easy to identify which genres were covered by the term, being Death, Thrash, Black, Grindcore and Funeral/Death Doom. It kinda made sense back then, as it differentiated the material from all the mags that claimed to be metal while focussing mainly on the likes of Skid Row, Motley Crue and Guns n Roses. I don't think the term really means much any more. There's so much crossover between genres these days, and there are releases in most metal genres that would be pretty fucking extreme to the inexperienced.

Interesting conversation though for sure. If you see me saying "extreme metal", I'm almost certainly using it the old school way. You'll have to excuse the fact that I'm simply getting old!

To me, more than anything, extreme metal requires harsh vocals. On top of that, common traits are downtuned guitars with heavier distortion and double bass/blast beat drumming. I think certain genres are almost always extreme metal (Death, Black, Grindcore) and others have bands that are extreme, and some that aren't (Thrash, Doom). I wouldn't call Metallica, Anthrax, or Megadeth extreme metal, but I would call Slayer, Sepultura, and Demolition Hammer extreme metal. The biggest difference is in the vocal deliveries and how often they employ double bass drumming and tremolo picking at high BPMs.

But of course, Funeral Doom is still extreme metal and doesn't often have these fast qualities, so that leaves us with the vocal delivery being the one thing tying them all together. Harsh vocals = extreme metal for me, because it is the most identifiable and forefront trait that will immediately turn a very large group of people away from the music. It is the most likely trait to be a problem for casual music listeners, making the music too "extreme" for mainstream audiences. 

When you think of mainstream appeal, what seems more likely to succeed; a Thrash Metal song with melodic vocals and catchy choruses, or a Pop song with death growls all the way through? Vocal style is the prominent factor in determining what is or isn't too extreme to be considered "normal."

To me, more than anything, extreme metal requires harsh vocals. On top of that, common traits are downtuned guitars with heavier distortion and double bass/blast beat drumming. I think certain genres are almost always extreme metal (Death, Black, Grindcore) and others have bands that are extreme, and some that aren't (Thrash, Doom). I wouldn't call Metallica, Anthrax, or Megadeth extreme metal, but I would call Slayer, Sepultura, and Demolition Hammer extreme metal. The biggest difference is in the vocal deliveries and how often they employ double bass drumming and tremolo picking at high BPMs.

But of course, Funeral Doom is still extreme metal and doesn't often have these fast qualities, so that leaves us with the vocal delivery being the one thing tying them all together. Harsh vocals = extreme metal for me, because it is the most identifiable and forefront trait that will immediately turn a very large group of people away from the music. It is the most likely trait to be a problem for casual music listeners, making the music too "extreme" for mainstream audiences. 

When you think of mainstream appeal, what seems more likely to succeed; a Thrash Metal song with melodic vocals and catchy choruses, or a Pop song with death growls all the way through? Vocal style is the prominent factor in determining what is or isn't too extreme to be considered "normal."

I agree about your thrash metal comparison (including the "Big 4" and Sepultura), but bands like Demolition Hammer and Sadus have remained mostly in the underground in their years of activity, and that's how I like extreme thrash, going extreme without ever hitting the mainstream. Funeral doom and DSBM can also be extreme, though they're often extremely slow and depressive, as opposed to the fast upbeat genres I'm more comfortable with. By the logic of "thrash metal with melodic vocals and catchy chorus" being more successful, Artillery could easily be the most popular band of thrash metal. A pop song with death growls would be very interesting, but it wouldn't really catch on. So definitely the former!

A pop song with death growls would be very interesting, but it wouldn't really catch on.

My five year old daughter listens to BABYMETAL & they have a few tracks that tick that box.

Oh yeah, well here's what I think is probably the most poppy alt-metalcore song I've heard: