I could be ok with this. But does that mean albums like Powerslave are not pure heavy metal to you?

They're New Wave of British Heavy Metal. And that album in particular is slightly proggy too.

I don't think Piece of Mind or Powerslave are still NWOBHM, they are pure (melodic heavy metal). NWOBHM applies to the first three albums in my opinion. And a lot of NWOBHM acts are pure heavy metal to me: taking again Iron Maiden as an example, the first two have straight punk rock influences but The Number of the Beast still has the NWOBHM vibe while being cleared of punk elements.

I don't agree at all about Powerslave being proggy. Unlike most metalheads think, progressive rock is not just about instrumental technique and composing long tracks. It's above all a specific sound and way to build progression. Iron Maiden do not sound like this.

You probably have a point about them moving out of NWOBHM over a period of albums. Still, they feel a bit dated to me as sounding very 80s and early, temporally locked to that era. Not in a bad way at all, but it is noticeable in what time period it was made. TBA even now still sounds relatively modern to me, partially because it was one of the trope setters for metal going forward. It doesn't sound as distinctly locked to the 90s as Maiden is the 80s, so it feels more "timeless", you could say. Not saying that's inherently better, just how it comes across to me. Obviously as metal continues to develop that feeling could dissipate as well.

I'm not saying PS is primarily a prog metal album, I said "slightly" because it has just a certain few elements, more so than some other similar bands. Most notably "Rime of the Ancient Mariner" with the song length, the multi-part structure, the variety in riffs, tempos, and moods, the otherworldly middle part, the conceptual monologue, it's far from a typical straightforward heavy metal song.

It's the same debate we had on the "Is Mercyful Fate black metal" (or something like that) thread. It's a question of point of view: according to your age and the period when you discovered metal, you might perceive genre differently. It will sounds strange to many that what sounds "80's" and "dated" to you cannot be pure heavy metal, while what is pure heavy metal for most is precisely what comes from this era, and what comes after is already bastardized.

Yeah, that could certainly be a part of it. Metallica was some of the first metal I heard, I didn't get into Maiden until later on.

Is there a USPM-style band that is pure power metal and doesn't borderline with another similar genre like heavy, speed, or thrash metal? It seems like this is the case with every band from the scene.

What is "pure" power metal? Power metal, especially so-called USPM, is already a mix of heavy, speed and (sometimes) thrash metal. So how could it not borderline these other subgenres?

Then it depends where you draw the line of "purity". All metal subgenres come from original heavy metal. So it's difficult to draw a straight purity line between subgenres belonging to the same genre. There are necessarily overlaps between them.

You could say that "pure" thrash contains some heavy and speed metal, or "pure" death always contains some thrash metal, but still they are sufficiently different to exist as subgenres. I wouldn't say the same for USPM which just sounds like a mix of already existing subgenres but adds nothing new.

I mean in the same way that many EUPM bands are grouped as "power metal" here in the Archives. I will count symphonic power here as well.
Unless if the entire USPM scene was always borderline to begin with. Then again, somee EU-labeled bands like 90s Blind Guardian and Gamma Ray were borderline as well. It seems like every guitar-clade power metal band in the Archives have another similar heavy/speed label with them, while bands with keyboards or orchestras are considered "pure."

The same applies to EUPM, and although many won't agree with this, it shows why power metal is sometimes contested as a legitimate subgenre. The fact that, as you said, only bands with keyboards or symphonic elements are considered pure in the Archives proves this statement: without those elements, power metal and heavy/speed metal are hardly distinguishable. Power metal freaks will get mad but there's a reason why the term was applied so lately to name this specific scene. In the beginning, it wasn't obvious at those bands created something of its own.

Yeah, it makes sense on why bands like Sonata Arctica, despite being associated with the genre, is not considered "symphonic power metal" and just pure "power metal," because those bands use keyboard as an atmospheric effect than focusing on symphony/theatrics. I still think Kamelot is kind of symphonic, especially their newer discogaphy.

As for the guitar-clade borderline bands, what are the qualities of them being power metal? I assume the melodies and the epic-chorus plays a role, but are there any others? What are the main similarities between USPM and EUPM?

It's an interesting question. As you've said, the only elements that could make the guitars specifically power metal (beyond being just heavy/speed(/thrash) is the emphasis on melody and epicness, as well as for the vocals. And they are the only similarities I can notice between USPM and EUPM. The differences is EUPM has a more enthusiastic (some would say happy) way to convey the idea of epicness which is often accentuated by the use of symphonic arrangements, and focus more on this characteristic double bass drumming.
Back to the common qualities, they can be found among regular traditional heavy/speed metal bands. Therefore power metal, even more USPM, hasn't created anything new except emphasizing specific elements that already exist among the subgenres it comes from.

But isn't Iron Maiden also very melodic and epic? Should they also be considered power metal, or at least some of their albums such as Powerslave and Seventh Son of a Seventh Son? I've searched up, and the main reason stated is the riffing pattern, but some bands such as Visigoth also focus more on trad riffs, yet are still considered partly pm.

This is exactly what I mean in my previous comment, read it again. If you prefer, traditional heavy metal is melodic and epic in nature, so power metal is nothing but very melodic and epic heavy/speed metal. That's why I personnally doubt it should br a thing and why the term appeared so lately to label this scene.

And this is why calling Powerslave or Seventh Son of a Seventh Son power metal is a non-sense: there are just heavy metal. But I hear a lot of power metal fans calling traditional heavy metal bands "power metal". Guess why? Because their power metal is just traditional heavy metal, so they see power metal everywhere. I've never listened to Visigoth but I'm sure that it's just traditional heavy metal. Anyway, "power metal" label sells more these days.

Yeah, it seems like "power metal" should've just been that similar soft European keyboard sound to Helloween's I Want Out, which I consider its own thing. Bands like Manowar should've just been trad heavy metal and Blind Guardian could be labeled instead as pure speed metal; would've also helped the speed label actually be well-established. Or power metal could've been the default term for thrash metal as it was almost the case back in the 80s, and the power metal we know of today could just be called "soft metal" or something.

But I assume all those bands are all just grouped together because of that epic or fantasy element, which is something in common scene-wise. Also power metal fans aren't as genre-specific as death or black metal fans, making fancy terms like "beastial depressive black metal" or "brutal slam deathcore."
But eh, what's past is already established, and at this point revision is difficult.

It depends on which past you talk about. Calling it "power metal" is already revisionism since the term was applied very lately to this scene: this definitely proves that during a full decade, it wasn't obvious at all this was something of its own.

I have absolutely no problem with revisionism as long as it is used in logical and sensible manner. Eventhough power metal hardly distinguishes from traditional heavy/speed metal, I may consent that EUPM has almost become something codified that can be identified as something of its own, but more as a subgenre of traditional heavy metal. As for USPM, sorry but most of the bands I've heard don't distinguish from heavy/speed. Manowar is traditional heavy metal and it's even more lately than the others that they came to be called power metal.

How does one define war metal?

I guess power metal could just be considered an extension of trad heavy metal, but I don't really know if there is that much of an overlap between the average Iron Maiden and Saxon fan with Sonata Arctica or Gloryhammer. I feel the trad heavy metal fans would be more into general classic 80s hard rock/heavy metal. But I suppose that's mainly because the genre labeling caused the separation.

This has been answered so many times on this thread and others, and I believe it's even written on the first post of this thread.



This was not the case until the late 90's and I guess even less in the 80's: those who listened to melodic heavy/speed and traditional heavy metal were globally the same audience because there was no separation.

I agree with you saying the genre labeling more or less contributed to the separation of these listeners. But at some point, this melodic heavy/speed metal became so codified and symphonic that power metal came to be something of its own, though a bit too cheesy for many traditional heavy metal fans.
Being a fan of traditional heavy metal (among others) in the 90's, I remember that in a first time, bands like Angra or Stratovarius sounded like what I liked in Iron Maiden but adding some kind of freshness to.it. But one or two years later, dozens and dozens of bands started to pop up like mushrooms, and I thought all this was becoming too happy and parodic for me. And indeed, there was a new audience that was entirely dedicated to that happy Dungeons and Drangons imagery, some of them being a strange mix of geeks and non-metalhead roleplayers, while it became a bit too cheesy for many traditional heavy metal fans. It's the moment were "power metal" as a term spread... and when I totally gave with this.
But this doesn't mean that even today, traditional heavy metal and power metal audiences are really disconnected, they are still close.

I know the term has existed for a while, but I think "melodic metal" could be a good umbrella term for bands with a great sense of melody. Iron Maiden, Sonata Arctica, Eluveitie, Children of Bodom, Killswitch Engage. And we can have some borderline bands like Blind Guardian. Kind of like how extreme metal is defined.

I don't think "melodic metal" is a relevant umbrella term because, as you've just showed, any genre of metal can be melodic. So I don't get the point of putting bands of different genres in the same bag just because they are melodic. "Melodic" has to remain a descriptor in my opinion.

That's the whole point of an umbrella term; it's supposed to be broad.

It's supposed to be relevant before being broad...

It kinda is relevant; there's an entire online radio station that plays "melodic metal" music, which mostly includes symphonic, progressive, NWOBHM, and power metal.

https://www.epicrockradio.com/

Ok... And does this radio play Children of Bodom, Killswitch Engage or melodic black, death, whatever extreme metal? The genres they play belong pretty much in the spectrum of traditional heavy metal.
Anyway, you still can think for yourself that "melodic metal" is a relevant umbrella term, just as you could suggest other umbrella term like "aggressive metal", "epic metal", "urban metal", "country side metal" or any feeling you want to focus on, no matter what actual genre is played. But I'm almost sure the majority wouldn't agree with you because apart from emphasizing melody, there are few musical similarities between them, therefore few reasons of using such a term.

Wait a second... what the fuck is Southern Metal? Is someone up to no good or is this an actual genre we recognize?

If you consider southern rock is a thing, that is, a specific kind of roots rock (rock with americana country and blues influences), then I don't see any reason southern metal couldn't be a thing. I don't know about Down's music enough to judge if the band could fit this label, but this is arguable in my humble opinion.

Surprised that they didn't put Children of Bodom in Epic Rock Radio. Well, as long as they're not considered "extreme metal," eh. I still think that there really should be an umbrella terminology for the prog/symphonic/folk/power metal subgenres, because they are usually connected somehow for their focus on melodies and theatrics.

As for southern metal, I'm not too familiar of the music, but it doesn't seem like a particularily well-established subgenre by the metal community, at least stand alone. From that band example, I do hear some stoner/doom/groove influences in them.

I guess southern metal isn't well established because it overlaps with stoner which shares almost the same elements and is well established. This is why a band that would play a metallized kind of southern rock would mostly be perceived by many as stoner: this is basically a mix of metal and blues rock with that Americana feel to it. But in my opinion, if there was such a thing as southern metal, it should be used for bands that stress the country elements as much as the blues elements, just like southern rock does. While stoner is more on the bluesy, groovy and doomy sides.

Black Label Society could deserve to be called southern metal, especially the first album. There are the country and blues elements, but the riffs are metal enough.

I know we just talked about it recently, but I really want to bring up the discussion again regarding USPM vs EUPM being good sylistic differentiators of power metal, because it's still something that I am confused on.

As I said before, the early German scene was just as riff-based as US bands, and none of those bands are "pure" power metal, but also augmented with traditional heavy or speed metal. Some purists would go as far to argue that they are not pure power metal to begin with. Also the so-called European style has diversified a lot.

I think it's your way of perceiving genres that is problematic for this question. As I said maybe a dozen of times before, either you consider power metal a subgenre of traditional heavy metal or not a legitimate thing at all. In this way, arguing that power metal (or speed metal) is not pure because it contains traditional heavy metal makes no sense at all or shows a very rigid way of perceiving how genres are constituted. It's like saying rock cannot be a pure genre because it always contains blues influences... Traditional heavy metal is the essence of power metal, so if you consider power metal is a thing, then how could it be bastardized by traditional heavy metal?

As for your US/EU issue, I don't really understand where you're trying to get at. Anyway, I maintain they're not good differentiators, but it's my opinion. It's just that the same term has been applied to name two different trends of traditional heavy metal and people still try hard to make it something coherent. Best of luck!

So I found this website: https://www.metalmusicarchives.com/subgenre/power-metal , and it specifically states that early USPM has more traditional heavy metal influence, whereas early EUPM has more speed metal influence. I don't know if that's completely accurate, but it does seem to take care of the issue regarding riffier European bands like Blind Guardian, and some theatrical American bands like Savatage, rather than simply defining it as "US hard Europe soft."

Back to your point on considering power metal a direct subgenre of trad heavy metal, would you say the similar with thrash metal, considering how bands like Metallica and Anthrax aren't too far off from traditional riffs? What about doom metal, which is literally based on the earliest styles of heavy metal?

Why discogs unofficial? Would you consider Brocas Helm power metal because of the site?

Once again, this is why I think US/EU are not relevant descriptors. While I could agree that EUPM became something of its own, USPM is just traditional heavy metal to me. If there's only one of them that would deserve to be called power metal (not for the name that doesn't fit the genre, but this is another question...), then it's EUPM, including non European bands who play in this style.



This is an interesting observation. I'd say thrash metal is close to traditional riffs indeed, but sufficiently different to be a separate subgenre. I mean, listening to "Metal Militia", "Angel of Death", "Battery" or "Arise", one can immediately hear that although the lineage with traditional heavy metal is obvious, there is a clear musical break too. In my opinion, this not the case with power metal, which sounds more like a variation of traditional heavy metal than a rupture. Anyway, I agree the earlier thrash metal bands naturally contain more traditional heavy metal.

As for doom metal, the first bands like Witchfinder General or Candlemass do sound like a slower and doomier variation of traditional heavy metal, so I would say the same as for power metal: it sounds like a direct subgenre. But then doom started to evolve, becoming something of its own and giving birth to a dozen of sub-subgenres that sound relatively further from traditional heavy metal.
I put aside Black Sabbath which is too "proto" to be relevant in this particular discussion...

Most likely the first album was a lot more NWOBHM with a punky edge. I wouldn't consider the next two albums "NWOBHM" as they're close to their later style.

Can epic doom metal by any means be considered a fusion genre between doom metal and power metal, or at least USPM (which some of us consider a different thing from power metal), or is it just predominantly doom metal? Should we go back to renaming USPM as "epic heavy metal" or something? How do you guys overall feel about "epic' as an official umbrella terminology? I know there is some historical significance of the terminology in general, and to some extent we can call certain EUPM bands as "epic power metal."

Honestly, at this point I've been thinking a bit too much over redefining metal subgenres to the point where I'm starting to swing back to the "who cares, it's all metal" phase. I mean, I do believe there are flaws with the labels, and I do like hearing what other people think, but I think I ought to give myself a fresh start on this.

This is funny because the day before you posted this comment, I was listening to Epicus Doomicus Metallicus by Candlemass. I still had our conversation in mind and I was thinking: "I'm sure those power metal freaks who see power metal everywhere would consider this album [US] power metal". Cause as soon as those guys hear epicness in anything traditional in metal, they claim it's power metal. And it helped understand better why power metal freaks are wrong: aside of being much too focused on power metal, their way of perceiving subgenre is completely anachronistic.
So I understand why you would like to suggest epic doom metal is a fusion of doom metal and power metal. But epicness in metal exists outside power metal (whose relevance as a subgenre, I remind it once again, can already be disputable in my humble opinion... but ok let's admit it). Then epic doom metal is... well... just... epic doom metal?

My answer to your question about USPM just being epic heavy metal answers the first question too. Yes, it could simply be called this because the music labeled USPM is actually epic heavy metal. What definitely makes USPM being a component of epic doom metal a non-sense.

I think "epic" is a relevant descriptor in metal, but I still don't go for your idea of turning descriptors into umbrella terms. I mean why not, but I don't get why.

As I already said in another comment, the reason why there are so many flaws with subgenre classification in metal (or in music in general) is that too often, the music industry, medias, bands and fans randomly throw in new terminologies, sometimes just for the sake of it, and without trying to be coherent with what has been done before. And it becomes even less coherent when those labels are haphazardly released into the metal mainstream, when music classification is a scientific thing that demands accuracy.

Luckily, it doesn't prevent us from enjoying the music!

I'm pretty sure I've said this before, but I believe the reason why some power metal fans are so eager claiming subgenres is that some other main subgenres have their official fancy subgenre terminologies (eg. "funeral doom metal," "brutal death metal," "atmospheric black metal," "electronicore"). For power metal, aside from fusions like symphonic, the only thing unique with power metal is the rather flawed USPM vs EUPM divide. And both USPM and EUPM often have connotations with "epic," which leads to claiming of anything epic-related. I think it's some jealousy or something.

But contrary, I've also seen EUPM fans disregard USPM as anything power metal related. Likewise, I've also seen USPM fans feeling so special about themselves that they disregard EUPM as anything "power metal," or even metal to begin with. I think it's part of a genre cleansing or revisioning thing, like that five page first-wave black metal debate we had in the discussion board before.

But honestly, when you think about it, many subgenres ultimately probably have pretentious extended labels you could define instead. For example, European power metal is essentially just "melodic speed metal," thrash metal is just "hardcore-inspired speed metal," death metal is just "brutal thrash metal," and so on.

NWOBHM is a label based on geography. I don't think you can narrow it to the Maiden sound of those first albums. It's true that punk was an influence on a lot of those bands and it often showed in their sound, but there were also bands that were closer to doom or melodic hard rock.